Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HAMPSHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 16 December.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

International Competitiveness

Mr. Tilley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what level of increase or decrease in money wages would be required over a five year period to restore the United Kingdom's international competitiveness to its level of May 1979, assuming no change in the relative level of the exchange rate.

Mr. Leighton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect Her Majesty's Government's economic policy has had on the competitiveness of British manufactures since May 1979.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Leon Brittan): I should like to apologise on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his absence today. He is abroad attending one of a regular series of informal meetings of Finance Ministers of five countries.
The loss of cost competitiveness since May 1979 reflects the fact that United Kingdom unit labour costs have risen more quickly than those of our competitors. The extent of the wage restraint needed to regain this cost competitiveness depends upon wage settlements overseas as well as at home, and also on whether we can improve productivity more quickly than our competitors. The Government's economic policies are designed to encourage increased productivity by removing unnecessary controls from the productive parts of the economy and by exposing the public sector to competition wherever possible.

Mr. Tilley: Am I right in thinking that there are two ways to increase competitiveness, the first being to reduce the exchange rate and the other to reduce unit labour costs? As the Chancellor and the Government have said that they reject the idea that has been advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends of a substantial devaluation, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Government are unwilling to tell us how many pounds a week that would

cost simply because they dare not tell the British electorate that they intend, should they get a chance in the next five years, to make people internationally competitive by taking large sums of money out of their weekly wage packets?

Mr. Brittan: That is wholly incorrect. The hon. Gentleman has completely ignored productivity, which is another major component in competitiveness. He has also ignored the fact that the test of competitiveness is comparative and that what matters is not merely how much British unit labour costs increase but what happens in other countries.

Mr. Leighton: Is it not astonishing that a Government who continually prate about the need for increased competitiveness have presided over the greatest loss of competitiveness in living memory? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the report of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and the London Business School, which apportions blame for the loss of that competitiveness as being up to 70 per cent. due to Government policy and the exchange rate and nil per cent. to the increase in real wages, as real wages have been decreasing?

Mr. Brittan: I do not accept that. I should be more impressed by what the hon. Gentleman said were it not for the fact that between the fourth quarter of 1976 and when the Government came to power competitiveness worsened by 28 per cent., and that from then until today it has fallen by 18 per cent.

Mr. Eggar: Would increased competitiveness as a result of the devaluation of sterling enable British manufacturers to export more competitively if they were unable to control wage costs?

Mr. Brittan: I do not believe that that is what would happen. Experience of past devaluations has shown that inflationary pressures that are caused by increased costs of imports quickly become apparent and that there is a rapid loss of any short-term benefit that may have been secured.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the Chief Secretary, who is prone to cite the examples of other countries when trying to excuse British unemployment, study the findings of the European management forum, which were published earlier this week and which add up to the
conclusion that during the past 12 months Britain has slipped back significantly in the OECD league of competitiveness?

Mr. Brittan: I shall look forward to studying the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend welcome the mention from the Opposition of the level of real wages? Will he emphasise that it is impossible to increase real wages by 5, 8 or 10 per cent. a year, and that the sooner we all settle for far smaller and more realistic pay settlements, the better it will be for all of us?

Mr. Brittan: It is true that the Opposition seem to be on a learning curve with regard to these matters. They seem to accept in their latest policy document that restraint in pay is necessary. The only difference between us is that they seem to take that for granted and seem, in the same document, to advance policies that are least calculated to achieve it.

Mr. Shore: First, we hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who informed us that he would not be present today, will have a fruitful discussion with his colleagues.
Returning to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley), as there is no evidence that productivity is improving relative to other countries—on the contrary, our productivity is slipping—and we have lost about 35 per cent. in cost competitiveness, does the Minister agree that the only way in which the Government can restore competitiveness is by cutting real wages and salaries?

Mr. Brittan: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's facts or his figures. The loss of competitiveness since the second quarter of 1979 is about 18 per cent., but it is significant that, after a sharp fall, cost competitiveness has improved by about 20 per cent. since the beginning of 1981.

Inflation

Mr. Ashley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the current rate of inflation and compare it with the level in May 1979 and with the highest level reached since then.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): The retail prices index for October, which is the most recent figure available, showed an increase of 6·8 per cent. over the previous 12 months. The corresponding figure for May 1979 was 10·3 per cent. and the highest figure reached since then was 21·9 per cent. in May 1980.

Mr. Ashley: In view of the Government's repeated claims about the benefit derived from reduced inflation, how much of that benefit, if any, will go to old-age pensioners and the millions of people on price index linked social security payments?

Mr. Hayhoe: All who are on small incomes have a special interest in the defeat of inflation. The Government's increasing success in this will help them as much as others in the community.

Mr. Whitney: Has the Treasury estimated what would be the effect on the current rate of inflation of implementing the Opposition's policies, including devaluation by 30 per cent.?

Mr. Hayhoe: Any such consideration would be highly theoretical. Certainly, far from being a programme for economic recovery, the Opposition's policies are contrived and constructed on an unsound base and are potentially disastrous.

Mr. Horam: Does the Minister find it acceptable that, on average, every 1 per cent. reduction in the retail prices index is bought at the price of more than half a million more people in the dole queue?

Mr. Hayhoe: That is a grossly misleading non-statistic. Such comparisons cannot be made. Those who understand these matters are all agreed that
beating inflation is essential if we are to maintain and increase employment."—[Official Report, 28 February 1978; Vol. 945, c. 223.]
I say that with authority, using the exact words of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth).

Industrial Activity

Mr. Stan Thorne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects his economic policies to result in increased industrial activity.

Mr. Hayhoe: Manufacturing output has declined slightly this year, but the Industry Act forecast projected an increase of 1 per cent. in 1983. The prospects for activity will be enhanced the more successful we are in improving competitiveness.

Mr. Thorne: How does the Minister expect that reply to be credible when production has fallen by 15 per cent. in the past four years? What action are the Government taking that is likely to create an upturn?

Mr. Hayhoe: My reply is credible because it is true. We must continue to improve competitiveness so that we can sell more of our goods and services both at home and abroad. In that way, we shall improve output and job prospects.

Mr. McCrindle: When the Government consider ways in which to stimulate economic activity, will they weigh carefully the respective benefits of a reduction in personal taxation, which may lead to no more than the purchase of imported goods, and of more direct stimulation such areas of activity as the construction industry?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will bear those very sensible considerations in mind in preparing his next Budget.

Dr. Bray: As the forecast that the Minister quoted was published before the recent fall in sterling and the Chief Secretary has just claimed that there has been an improvement in competitiveness as a result, will the recent fall in sterling improve the prospects for manufacturing output next year?

Mr. Hayhoe: Having considered all the factors, we would not wish to resile from the forecasts in the autumn statement. As I believe the hon. Gentleman fully understands, all these matters will be taken into account when the next Treasury forecast is made at about the time of the next Budget.

Confederation of British Industry

Mr. Foster: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the Confederation of British Industry.

Mr. Dobson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next excepts to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the level of demand in the British economy.

Mr. Brittan: The Chancellor and I will be meeting representatives of the Confederation of British Industry on 14 December, when we shall be able to have a wide-ranging discussion.

Mr. Foster: When the Chancellor meets the CBI, will he discuss why, although British industry has done everything that the Chancellor asked of it in making itself slimmer and fitter and has sought in every possible way to reduce its costs and to introduce more flexible working practices, it is now 30 per cent. less competitive than when the Government came to power?

Mr. Brittan: If anybody from the CBI makes that point, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and


I will wish to correct the figures and to point out that competitiveness has improved by 20 per cent. since the beginning of 1981, while the net fall since the Government came to office has been 18 per cent. In this context I welcome the opportunity to correct the wrong assumption of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) that the gain in competitiveness was caused by the fall in the exchange rate, which is true only to a small extent.

Mr. Dobson: When the Chancellor meets the leaders of he CBI, will he remind them that they supported the policies on which the Government were elected and that they welcomed the Chancellor's first Budget and the lifting of exchange controls? Will he therefore exhort them to take responsibility, with him and the Prime Minister, for the fact that for the first time in history this country has become a net importer of manufactured goods?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The CBI supported those policies and still does. Indeed, in its reaction to the autumn statement the CBI rightly pointed out that, as a result of my right hon. and learned Friend's announcements, business costs will have been reduced by nearly £900 million by April 1984.

Mr. McNally: When the Minister meets the CBI, will he ask to see the latest survey by the North-West region CBI, which shows that only 8 per cent. of industry in the North-West expects any improvement in circumstances next year? Will he consider the request from the CBI, the chambers of commerce and local authorities of all political persuasions for investment by the Government in the North-West, without which they believe there is no prospect of industrial recovery for the region?

Mr. Brittan: I appreciate the difficult conditions in the North-West and, indeed, in the North-East. At the same time, however, I believe that the right course is for the Government, through the various policies and departmental spending programmes, to reflect a proper order of priorities for the country as a whole, which will obviously include giving proper attention to the needs of the North-West.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the CBI of the importance of lower interest rates, as 1 per cent. off interest rates is worth £300 million to industry? Does he agree with the CBI that increased public spending and borrowing tends to put up those interest rates?

Mr. Brittan: I agree with all those propositions, and I am sure that the CBI will as well.

Mr. Jay: Is it not now clear that the Chancellor's decision to abolish exchange control is forcing the Government to keep up interest rates, thereby holding back recovery, particularly in the building industry?

Mr. Brittan: I do not accept that. If the policy suggested by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) and his hon. Friends for reimposing exchange control were introduced, the value of the pound would rise, at least temporarily, which is contrary to another of the Labour Party's major policy objectives, however mistaken that may be.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Minister aware that the latest CBI survey expects even weaker export growth and increased import penetration? Does he still believe his comment that the evidence of recovery is all around us?

Mr. Brittan: The latest CBI survey reflects the fact, which we have all pointed out and about which there is no mystery, that economic conditions and prospects have been disappointing in the past year. There is no question about that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am astonished that Labour Members should have listened so carelessly the last time I answered questions that what I say on this occasion has caused surprise. Our estimate of what will happen is set out in the autumn statement published last month, which shows the prospect and expectation of a modest increase of output over the coming year. That remains our expectation.

£ Sterling

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take action to adjust the value of the £ sterling so as to increase competitiveness.

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present valuation of the £ sterling against the United States dollar; and what was its valuation on 3 May 1979.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne): The value of the pound against the United States dollar this morning was $1·6130. On 3 May 1979 its value was $2·0759. The sterling effective index stood at 85·8 this morning against 86·3 in May 1979. The experience over many years is that the United Kingdom cannot solve its basic problems of competitiveness by depreciation. This must depend on increased productivity, more realistic wage settlements and improving the quality of the goods and services that we produce.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the devaluation of a currency that is over valued a competitive devaluation?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am not sure that there is much point in arguing about the precise definition of devaluation. If we look back at our experience over many years we find that, for instance, when the Labour Party devalued the currency in 1967, within five years any competitive advantage had disappeared. Between 1973 and 1976 there was a 25 per cent. reduction in the international value of sterling, but no gain for competitiveness.

Mr. James Lamond: Does the Minister recall the halcyon days when his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister used foolishly to boast that the high value of the pound against the dollar was a measure of the confidence that people abroad had in her Government? Now that there has been a 19 per cent. slippage in that value do we take it that the standing of the right hon. Lady's Government in the United States is as low as it is here?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The standing of my right hon. Friend's Government in the United States is extremely high, as the hon. Gentleman would know if he ever went near that country. A variety of different influences applies to all internationally traded currencies. With regard to how the pound stands, inevitably expectations about oil prices. for example, are liable to lead to influences on our exchange rate. It is vital that we show, as we do, our


commitment to the elimination of inflation, which has been the great bugbear of our economy, is unwavering and will be continuously and effectively pursued.

Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is asking the Chancellor to adjust the exchange rate? Does he further agree that if there were a fear of a Labour Government, the Labour Chancellor would not have to be asked to adjust the devaluation rate, as the pound would plummet?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Fortunately, that possibility is widely deemed to be so remote that the markets are prepared to discount it.

Mr. Shore: Is it still the policy of the Government, as the Chancellor informed us in his statement a fortnight ago, to leave the exchange rate of the pound to the market? If that is the Government's policy, can the Minister explain why a week or so ago the Bank of England intervened in the markets to push up the base rate to the banks to 10 per cent? Are we to understand from that behaviour that whenever there are significant movements on the foreign exchanges the Government intend to respond by further increases in the bank base rate?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has not clearly understood what has been happening in the markets. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has frequently made it clear that we do not have, have never had and would never have an exchange rate target. The performance of the exchange rate is one of the indicators to which we have regard in assessing the relative tightness or laxity of monetary policy.
Ten days ago the market moves led to a lifting in bank base rates, with which the Bank of England acquiesced. It was not a question of the bank making the movement. If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that, I suggest that he pays closer attention to what happens in the markets.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: In order to assist in a more realistic world-wide value of sterling, will the Treasury ask the public authorities to consider making the earliest possible repayment of their foreign debts, which total more than £11 billion?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: As the hon. Gentleman knows, since the Government took office we have repaid a great deal of foreign debt on public account, but we have done so wherever it has been profitable so to do. That should be the bench mark by which we operate, not some idea of aiming at a particular figure. The point is that the decision to pay off existing debt or even to incur new debt depends on the profitability of the operation. That is the basis on which we have operated and shall continue to operate.

European Community Budget

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Economic Community in 1983; and if he will make a statement.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): It is impossible to estimate our gross, let alone our net, contribution for 1983 at this stage.

Mr. Taylor: Everyone has welcomed the temporary rebates that have been achieved over the past two years, but is it not intolerable that after 10 years we still have not had a permanent change in the unfair rules and that during that time Britain has had to pay over £1 million a day net every day? What options are open to the Government if there is a continued refusal by the EEC to change the rules, which are grossly unfair to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend that an equitable, long-term solution is highly desirable, and that is what we have been pressing for ever since my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor made a speech at The Hague setting out a possible way to achieve that. However, I think that my hon. Friend will not disagree when I say that we have to negotiate for the next arrangement as hard as we can.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not true that the Government know with accuracy how much membership of the EEC costs but are frightened to tell the British people, because the people wish to come out of the Common Market? If the Government do not know, is it not disgraceful? What kind of Exchequer have we if it does not know these costs? Is not the reality that the British people want to come out of the Community as it is too expensive, is backward and does everything that it should not do?

Mr. Ridley: The reality is that the hon. Gentleman has not done his homework. He should know that the 1983 budget has not yet been adopted by the European Parliament and, furthermore, that no agreement has so far been negotiated for the refund of British contributions.

Public Sector Capital Investment

Mr. Hicks: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the present levels of capital investment in the public sector of the United Kingdom economy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ridley: Public sector capital investment was planned to be £13·8 billion in 1982–83. The Prime Minister has expressed her disappointment that local authorities' and nationalised industries' expenditure is likely to fall well short of these plans. Since these bodies decide their own capital programmes, we cannot ensure that they make full use of the planned provision.

Mr. Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that a programme of enhanced, but selective, capital investment, particularly for the building and construction industry, would help reverse the unemployment trend and stimulate the economy? Does he further agree that such a programme would not run contrary to the Government's counter-inflation programme but would help the PSBR and stimulate the private sector, as 90 per cent. of such contracts go straight to the private sector?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend should address those remarks, with which I have much sympathy, to the local authorities and the nationalised industries, because they could spend a great deal more during the current financial year without even reaching the ceilings imposed by the Government. It would help if they did so.

Mr. Skinner: The problem with the local authorities' and nationalised industries' spending that so-called capital allocation is that the Secretary of State for the Environment and other Ministers insist that those bodies


spend that money only when there are no revenue implications. Yesterday another Minister came to the House and told us that nearly £50 million was to be spent on the Falklands. That will have serious revenue implications for those 1,500 people. Why cannot the rest of Great Britain be treated in the same way? The money would then be spent and the unemployment figures would go down.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on two counts. First, the revenue implications of increased capital investment by local authorities are taken into account—

Mr. Skinner: No, they are not.

Mr. Ridley: —in setting their targets. Secondly, local authorities have received about £1½ billion during the current financial year from the sale of council houses. That money is available without any servicing costs at all.

Mr. John Townend: Can my hon. Friend understand the surprise of Humberside ratepayers where the Labour council, having spent money like water, increased the rates by 60 per cent. and spent all its capital allocation and receipts, is now being asked by the Government to put forward applications for further allocations? Can he understand why the ratepayers feel that it is a prize for a profligate spender?

Mr. Ridley: I cannot answer for any local authority which has overspent its revenue account and robbed its capital account to do so. I cannot comment on Humberside.

Mr. Cook: Is it not pure effrontery to lecture local authorities on failing to invest, after three years during which they and nationalised industries have seen their cash limits screwed down? Is the Minister aware that the combined figure for central and local government investment is half the 1979 level? Those cuts have crippled industries such as construction, which depend on public sector investment. Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the speech last week by Mr. Chetwood, Wimpey's chief executive, when he predicted that it would take the construction industry the next 10 years to recover from the past three years of Conservative Government?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must particularise. There are two ways in which capital expenditure takes place. First, there are those grants made by the Government to local authorities and nationalised industries. Secondly, there is what those bodies spend. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures of what they spend, he will find that his figure is not correct. It is perfectly correct for the Government to draw attention to the shortfall in capital spending by those bodies, since the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), which has great validity, is that they have not spent what they could.

Family Income

Mr. Winnick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far a married man with two children on average and less than average income has benefited from changes in the levels of income tax and national insurance contributions under the present Administration.

Mr. Ridley: The burden of income tax for those on average earnings has reduced since the Government took

office. National insurance contributions are higher, because they have had to finance increased benefits. After taking account of increases in child benefit, most married families at all income levels with two children are now better off in real terms than in 1978–79.

Mr. Winnick: Is it a fact that in written parliamentary answers information has been given that shows that the vast majority of people are now paying considerably more in taxes and national insurance contributions than when the Government took office? Only those people earning five times the national average and above have benefited. As the Government were elected on a promise of tax cuts, is it not obvious that they were elected on a plain lie?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman's question asked how people had benefited. I shall therefore give him answers relating to real after-tax incomes, which. whether people are on half average earnings, average earnings or twice average earnings, have increased between 1 and 5 per cent. in all cases. That assumes that they have had the average rise in earnings.

Mr. Forman: While the figures that my hon. Friend has given the House represent a step in the right direction, does he agree that a great deal more progress is needed to raise the tax thresholds of those on low incomes?

Mr. Ridley: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view. I hope that the House will cooperate to help the Government to reduce the level of public spending so that that desirable objective can be brought to fruition.

Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that he is wilfully misleading the House in the figures that he has just given, having failed to answer the original question? Is he aware that in an answer that he gave me some months ago the figures showed that the burden of income tax and national insurance contributions had risen by £7 in real terms above the level obtaining under the Labour Government in 1978–79? Does he want the figures? I have them here. Why is the Minister seeking to mislead the House We all know that the burden of taxation upon those with average incomes and below has risen and risen again under the Government. How does that square with the pledges given by every Minister at the general election to reduce taxation for all levels of income?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I do not mislead the House, wilfully or otherwise. He does not distinguish between the question I was asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and those that he has asked me previously. The question asked how much certain people have benefited from changes in the level of income tax. The percentage of income tax that they pay is quite different. The hon. Gentleman never takes into account the fact that people have had a few wage increases since we came to power.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Will my hon. Friend face reality and recognise that the tax burden has increased and that it is vital that the Government take that message on board in order to restore incentives to work? Is he aware that the most important thing the Government should do in the forthcoming Budget is to raise tax thresholds above the supplementary benefit and family income supplement levels?

Mr. Ridley: I always face reality. I agree with my hon. Friend that the tax burden has increased. I hope that he


agrees with me that the standard of living for all classes has slightly increased. I agree with him that it would be most desirable to lighten the burden of taxation in any way that we can.

Long-term Economic Indicators

Mr. Dormand: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which long-term indicators suggest that the economy is improving.

Mr. Brittan: Evidence of an improvement in the underlying potential of the economy may be seen in the reduction in inflation, greater realism in wage bargaining and lower interest rates than a year ago. Further evidence is provided by continuing high levels of productivity growth.

Mr. Dormand: Does the Chief Secretary recall the forecast made a year ago by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself about the upturn in the economy? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now come clean and admit that this was so much moonshine? Will he say what is the difference between those indicators and the ones that he has now presented to the House? Does he not agree that the time has arrived for a fundamental change in policies and that, despite what has been stated from the Government Dispatch Box today, two essential ingredients in a new policy must be a big increase in public expenditure and a complete re-examination of the value of the pound?

Mr. Brittan: I do not agree with either of the hon. Gentleman's conclusions. I believe that an increase in public spending would inevitably have damaging rather than beneficial consequences. I am proud of the fact that this Government have succeeded, for the first time since 1977, in controlling public expenditure by not increasing it during the course of the review. Next year, it will be going down in real terms. I disagree entirely with the policy of devaluation tendered by the hon. Gentleman. The consequence would be to give another twist to the inflationary spiral and damage the improvement to the underlying potential of the economy.

Mr. Madel: As a profitable motor industry is essential to long-term economic improvement, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the removal of the unfair 10 per cent. special car tax in the next Budget, which would further help the industry? Is he aware that any loss of revenue will be more than met and made up by increased sales and increased VAT receipts?

Mr. Brittan: Assistance has been given to the motor industry by the removal of hire purchase controls. This has been beneficial. Representations for the further change suggested by my hon. Friend have been made by others. They will be considered carefully.

Mr. Shore: The House has heard a succession of the most contorted, if not "riddle", figures during today's exchanges. Will the Chief Secretary, in addressing himself to forecasts or indicators concerning the future of the economy, reflect upon his statement a few minutes ago that there had been an improvement in competitiveness of about 20 per cent. since, I think, February 1981? Does he not agree that the improvement that has taken place—it has to be set against the background of an earlier deterioration

of about 50 per cent.—has been entirely associated with a downward movement of the exchange rate from the absurd height that it had reached?

Mr. Brittan: No. I do not accept that. The vast majority of the percentage increase in competitiveness occurred before there had been any change in the exchange rate. I welcome the opportunity to point out that the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) frequently talks about competitiveness but does not tell the House, as I did earlier this afternoon, that, in the period between the fourth quarter of 1976, when his Government were in power and the time when we came to power there was a fall in competitiveness of 28 per cent. compared with a fall of 18 per cent. since then.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to exempt charities from value added tax in respect of those services which are provided through them by local authorities.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The services provided by charities to local authorities are already generally exempt or outside the scope of the tax.

Mr. Pavitt: How can the Minister justify the fact that the Royal National Institute for the Deaf pays £20,000 VAT on residential accommodation for the deaf and for the psychiatrically disturbed? How does he reconcile what has been put to him by the Spastics Society with statements by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to the effect that he wants greater co-operation between the voluntary bodies and the social services? If his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to take action in the Budget, will he make any proposals retrospective, so that all charities that have been clobbered for VAT on residential accommodation get their money back?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that my right hon. and learned Friend and all Ministers are deeply indebted to the charities for the services that they provide, especially the sort of services to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. It is a fact that charities have always paid indirect tax. They paid purchase tax in the old days. They also paid petrol tax. We have looked at the matter carefully and continue to examine it. It is extremely difficult to find any satisfactory way of giving exemption from a particular form of indirect taxation. It is something that successive Governments have always found it impossible to offer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Silvester: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 9 December.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with Lord Shackleton on his Falklands report.

Mr. Silvester: Will my right hon. Friend join in the call to all those who are preparing to celebrate a Christian


festival to urge those who have any knowledge or information about terrorists to put their loyalty to their faith above other loyalties and to help the security forces purge us of this evil?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, although he and I would also say that we do not need Christmas to remind us that terrorism is one of the evils of our age, that it may happen at any time and any day, and that we owe it to everyone to fight terrorism unremittingly every day. We shall continue to do so.

Mr. Foot: I join the right hon. Lady in saying that the whole House and, I believe, the overwhelming majority of the people of this country, are determined to stamp out the terrorism that constitutes such a great threat to our country. I wish to refer specifically to the exclusion orders that the Home Secretary has imposed. I regret deeply that it appears not to have been possible to deal with the matter in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) recommended to the House on Tuesday. I had thought that the whole House recognised the wisdom of the approach that he suggested at that time.
However, in the aftermath of the hideous events at Ballykelly, I can also understand that no one, including the Home Secretary, could be sure that lives might not be at risk if the visit went ahead. I fully understand, therefore, the reasons why the Home Secretary made the recommendation. That is also the case that I put most forcefully—[Interruption.]. If the House will permit me half a minute, I will come to the question—and directly to Mr. Livingstone [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]. Yes, because I believed that the paramount necessity was to try to get the invitation called off, particularly after the events that had occurred at Ballykelly. I believe that that was the right approach from the point of view of the whole
I wish to put to the right hon. Lady this question. I understand the reasons why the Home Secretary has acted in the way that he has done today, but considerable anomalies are left. There are now different laws applying to different people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech"]. Will the right hon. Lady consider how we are to deal with this situation? Does she not agree that the application of different laws in different situations causes a great sense of grievance in Northern Ireland and throughout the country as a whole? Will she examine the whole situation?

The Prime Minister: No. I do not agree with what I think the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Parliament gave the Home Secretary very clear powers under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. Those powers enable the Home Secretary to exclude certain people from Great Britain and for the Secretary of State to exclude certain people from Northern Ireland. The powers have been used many times. Exclusion orders made by Home Secretaries under that Act and the previous Act amount to 289. Of those, 37 involved the exclusion from the United Kingdom of Irish citizens. The remainder involved exclusions from Great Britain. Since 1976, 24 exclusion orders have been made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, of which seven involved exclusions from Northern Ireland of citizens of the United Kingdom. The remainder were excluded from the United Kingdom. The powers that the Act gives are clear, and it is under that Act that my right hon. Friend has rightly operated. The powers are:

If the Secretary of State is satisfied that any person … is or has been concerned whether in Great Britain or elsewhere in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism … the Secretary of State may make an order against that person prohibiting him from being in, or entering, Great Britain.
The Metropolitan Police applied for orders on the basis of intelligence about the men's involvement in terrorist activity. The Home Secretary was satisfied about their past involvement, and rightly and responsibly, made these orders.

Mr. Foot: I do not question the nature of the Act, because we know its nature. Indeed, I specifically said that I believed that in the circumstances, after the events of Tuesday, it was natural that the Home Secretary should act in this way. However, it leaves considerable anomalies. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will understand this. If she reads the reports and comments that have come from Northern Ireland on the matter—not only from the mainland—I believe that she will understand that we still need to look at the legislation and see how it is applied, and see whether we shall have the same laws applying to the whole of the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister: I do not understand what anomalies the right hon. Gentleman is referring to under this Act. The Act is perfectly clear. What anomalies is the right hon. Gentleman referring to?

Mr. Foot: The anomaly is—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady asked me a question. The anomaly is—

Mr. Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Leader of the Opposition to usurp question time to make a series of statements, however incomprehensible they may be?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That point of order was legitimate earlier, but the Leader of the Opposition was asked a question, and I thought that he should give the answer before we moved on.

Mr. Foot: The anomaly is that under this legislation some people are free to walk about in Belfast but not in London. Surely that is an anomaly. [Interruption.] I ask the right hon. Lady to say that the House of Commons should debate the matter afresh, in view of the circumstances that have arisen.

The Prime Minister: That is not an anomaly. It is inherent in the Act, which the right hon. Gentleman's Government passed.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the face of the clear and grave warning by the Metropolitan Police of the consequences of a visit to London by the representatives of Sinn Fein, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had no safe choice other than to ban the visit and to put an end to a deliberate attempt by the leader of the Greater London Council to raise a whirlwind of trouble for London?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary acted under the clear provisions of this Act, which give the power of exclusion from Great Britain. It also gives powers of exclusion from Northern Ireland, and sometimes those orders could operate so that the person is


returned to Britain. It is not an anomaly. It is a clearly thought-out Act, and it has been operated correctly over the years. It was operated correctly and responsibly in this case.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: rose—

Mr. Skinner: Here is the author.

Mr. Jenkins: As the sponsor of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974—

Mr. Skinner: It was a temporary Act.

Mr. Jenkins: —renewed in 1977, with the full support of the Cabinet, including the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), may I say that in my view the Home Secretary was clearly justified in making such an order under the Act, and that on balance he was right so to do? However, may we know whether he was primarily concerned with the prevention of terrorist acts in this country or the preservation of public order, if these two representatives of terrorism were to visit London at this time?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend was concerned to act under the powers of the Act which I read out, which is related to acts of terrorism.

Mr. Tom Clarke: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clarke: Is the Prime Minister aware of yesterday's publication in "Social Trends", showing that youth unemployment in this country has reached the staggering figure of 25 per cent? Does she recall that during the Falklands exercise she promised to pursue her views at all costs? Will she apply the same principles, dedication and resources to removing this blight from our society?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there is a big new scheme for youth training, beginning in September of next year. We also have a number of centres up and down the country. Within a year's time there will be 150 such centres for training young people in computer skills and in the skills of information technology. In that sphere there is a growth rate of 8 per cent. a year. There are jobs to be had, and we must make certain that those jobs are found in this country and not overseas.

Mr. Heddle: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to read The Observer of 21 November 1976, where she will see a report of a Labour Party committee that considered unemployment—whose membership included the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams)—which predicted that unemployment would rise by 100 per cent. to 2·5 million by early 1980? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is politically immoral for the Opposition parties to pretend to make political capital out of a situation which they knew would happen and which their policies helped to create?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Unemployment has risen under both Governments. Under both Governments, because of demographic factors, we have had a large number of school leavers over a period

of six years. Between 1978 and 1985 there were an extra 1½ million people of working age in this country. So, without a world recession, we should have had to provide many more jobs to keep those people occupied. That is an extra factor, in addition to world recession. Perhaps it is that known factor that gave rise to some of the predictions that my hon. Friend so aptly mentioned.

Mr. Ashton: Will the right hon. Lady find time today to visit Smithfield market? Is she aware that the most profitable industry in Britain today is agriculture, with profits increased by 20 per cent.? Is that not due to compulsory planning agreements, such as those of the Egg Marketing Board and the Potato Marketing Board? Why does she not attach the same principles to controlling imports of steel as she attaches to imports of food to support the Tory farmers, and thus make the rest of industry just as profitable?

The Prime Minister: I regret that I cannot go to Smithfield, particularly as some of my family are involved in farming. Every country has its own measures for agriculture. We operate under the common agriculture policy for agriculture. We operate under a Community system for steel, under which there are considerable restrictions on steel imports to the Common Market. The same is true of agriculture.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Townsend: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the transcript of the Labour Party's last and most misleading party political broadcast on nuclear weapons? Is she aware that the Labour Party is now committed to reducing Britain's defence expenditure in line with that of our European NATO allies, which would mean severe cutbacks in Britain's conventional forces? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that such cutbacks could lead to NATO commanders resorting to tactical nuclear weapons at an earlier stage?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the Opposition's defence policy, which is just not a credible policy. It seems that the answer to the nuclear threat is not unilateralism, which Mr. Andropov called naive, but an intense effort to secure multilateral disarmament.

Mr. William Hamilton: When?

The Prime Minister: Regularly, and now in Geneva, if people will come to the negotiating table. If Opposition Members would direct some of their efforts towards influencing the Soviet Union to negotiate, it would be better. I am aware of what my hon. Friend said. It is the Labour Party's policy to reduce the proportion of our gross national product that is spent on defence from the present 5 per cent. down to the European average, which is about 3·5 per cent. That would mean a drop in defence expenditure of £4½ billion, the equivalent of abolishing the Royal Navy.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance, about the trend in Prime Minister's Question Time? At least two questions today were about the policies of the Labour Party. However, a number of hon. Members have been waiting


to ask questions on subjects that are the direct responsibility of the Prime Minister, including foreign affairs. We wanted to ask her about her attitude to, and what action she would take over the disgraceful invasion of Lesotho by the South African military—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not, under the guise of a point of order, go on to raise the point that is concerning him.

Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not seeking to raise a question under the guise of a point of order, but I wanted to seek your guidance. Are we now to understand that if we go to the Table Office and table questions to the Prime Minister about the policies of the Tory Party or Tory local authorities and councils, those questions will be accepted?

Mr. Speaker: Such questions have been asked ever since I have been Speaker, under the present Administration as well as the last Administration. People answer for their own policies.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you tell us whether you are setting an interesting precedent by calling Prime Minister's Question 81 before Question 2?

Mr. Speaker: No, but we have had some other precedents today. I have not yet looked at Question No. 81. I hope that all of us will bear in mind that Question Time—I have now seen question No. 81, tabled by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke). I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 DECEMBER—Private Members' motions until 7 o'clock. Afterwards, remaining stages of the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. Proceedings on the Lands Valuation Amendment (Scotland) Bill.
TUESDAY 14 DECEMBER—Motions on the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 2), on the British National Oil Corporation (Borrowing Powers) Order and on the British Steel Corporation (Reduction of Capital) Order.
WEDNESDAY 15 DECEMBER—Debate On the Liberal—Social Democratic Party motion relating to the statement of changes in immigration rules. Motions on the Films (Suspension of Quota Requirements) Order and on the Companies and Business Names (Amendment) Regulations.
THURSDAY 16 DECEMBER—Motion on the fair wages resolution.
FRIDAY 17 DECEMBER—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY 20 DECEMBER—Motion on the Christmas Adjournment. Remaining stages of the Agricultural Marketing Bill.
It will be for the convenience of the House to know that it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Thursday 23 December until Monday 17 January.

Mr. Foot: I must ask the Leader of the House about a number of matters. May I put it to him as strongly as possible that we in the Opposition object most vehemently to the idea of a proposal for the abolition of the fair wages resolution and to the motion that the Government have tabled on that subject? The passage of that motion could do serious injury to low-paid workers. We ask the Government to withdraw it especially because they have an obligation under the International Labour Organisation convention to have proper consultations before they proceed in that direction. They have not had anything that can possibly be described as consultation with the Trades Union Congress. The Secretary of State for Employment has not discharged that obligation. A curtailed correspondence is not a fulfilment of that obligation. We are opposed to the Government's proposal. I urge the Leader of the House to look afresh at the motion and bring it back to the House, if he must, early in the new year or later. He should withdraw it for next week.
Will the Leader of the House give a definite commitment that there will be a statement on Wednesday on the multi-fibre arrangement negotiations? I understand that a final report will be put to the Council of Ministers on 13 or 14 December. Whether or not it is the final report, it will be crucial and essential that a full statement is made to the House immediately by the Minister for Trade. I am sure that the Leader of the House must be aware that the textile and clothing industries in the United Kingdom have lost 210,000 jobs in the past three years. Therefore, it is essential that we hear the Government's statement on the matter as speedily as possible.
We have had many exchanges on steel before. I renew the demand to the Leader of the House that the Government should make a statement on what action they propose to take to sustain the industry. It should be made early next week. I hope that he will give us an idea of the date when the statement will be made by the Secretary of State for Industry.
We have constantly demanded that there should be a fisheries debate. We do not believe that the statement that was made by the Prime Minister on Tuesday should close the matter. The House of Commons should have the right to give its own view on the subject.
Finally, may we have a statement on the teacher training colleges? Can we have a debate on the closing of such colleges and the implications in the regions, and on special training colleges, for example Catholic training colleges. The cuts imposed by the Secretary of State for Education and Science are having a serious effect in some regions. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us satisfaction on that point, too.

Mr. Biffen: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will allow me to comment on the five points that he has put to me in the sequence in which they were presented.
I appreciate at once that the proposal on the fair wages resolution is highly contentious, and understandably so. I must share with the House the fact that the Secretary of State for Employment wrote to the TUC and to other interested parties on 26 May. Representations on the matter were received subsequently. The Secretary of State told Parliament on 28 July that after the recess it was his intention to invite the House to rescind the fair wages resolution. I feel that the House has been kept reasonably involved and that the period of consultation has been reasonable enough. However, I accept at once that for those who take a strong view on the legislation, it is not consultation but the matter itself which is the real issue.
Like the Leader of the Opposition, I hope that the next meeting of the Council of Ministers on the multi-fibre arrangement will come to a conclusion. That would enable my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade to come to the House at once with a comprehensive statement on those discussions. That must depend upon the progress of the Council of Ministers. I assure the House, and hon. Members below the Gangway, that as soon as decisions have been reached they will be presented to the House.
The Leader of the Opposition has expressed his anxiety that there should be a statement on the steel industry before we rise for the Christmas Recess. I can assure him that that is our intention.
There is the prospect of a Council of Ministers meeting in the near future and, given the delicate state of negotiations, it would be more appropriate, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, that we should have a debate on fisheries after that.
I take note of what the Leader of the Opposition says about the teacher training college programme and the possibility of a statement on that. It may be helpful if that matter is dealt with through the usual channels.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman's answer on the fisheries debate is not at all satisfactory. There have been long discussions on this matter and at this critical stage the House of Commons surely has a right to express its view. Again, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow us a debate on that subject.


Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the Government have discharged their obligation to have consultations under the ILO convention by this cursory exchange of letters between the Secretary of State for Employment and the TUC on the fair wages resolution? Even if the Government are determined to proceed with this miserable measure, surely they should fulfil their obligations under the convention.

Mr. Biffen: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman's latter point is a matter for contention. However, it cannot be gainsaid that my right hon. Friend wrote to the TUC in May, some six months ago, and that there has been an exchange of views since then. Whether they were cursory or not does not necessarily reflect upon the way in which my right hon. Friend conducted himself. This matter is well-known to the House and to the interested parties outside.
I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition, bearing the imprint of experience in this post, will acknowledge that the fisheries debate is a matter of some careful judgment when one has a Council of Ministers meeting which it is hoped will resolve what has been a long-standing dispute. The House is properly anxious to pass a judgment on those negotiations and the tactic most conducive to their successful outcome would be a debate after the Council of Ministers meeting.

Mr. Edward du Cann: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to consider afresh, and not close his mind to, the possibility of a future debate on the Civil Service in the context of several important occurrences? There has been a transfer of functions to the Treasury; a report to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee; a significant Government White Paper proposing several innovations; and a number of speeches by distinguished persons, including the permanent secretary to the Treasury. Many right hon. and hon. Members would be pleased to have an opportunity to express a view on those significant matters.

Mr. Biffen: I take note of what my right hon. Friend says. I must give the somewhat restricted reply that I can see no prospect of such a debate in the immediate future, but I shall bear in mind the importance that he attaches to this topic, which I know is shared by many other hon. Members.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Leader of the House appreciate that what we need is not a statement on teacher training colleges—we have had that—but a debate, so that we can investigate whether the factual basis on which the Secretary of State has founded his decisions is sound?

Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but he will appreciate that I have suggested the usual channels procedure for this matter and I hope that he will not feel that they are too exclusive. Both the Leader of the Opposition and I have heard his comments.

Mr. Bob Cryer: As we are approaching the season of peace and good-will, can we have a debate on peace and disarmament? The Leader of the House consistently refuses such a debate and the Prime Minister consistently claims that she is in favour of multilateral disarmament while making plans to buy Trident, allowing cruise missiles to be stationed here, and mis-representing the world stockpiles of nuclear warheads which favour

America and the NATO countries. We need a debate in order to deploy our arguments and show that the Prime Minister is interested in peace, not warmongering, which is the impression of most people.

Mr. Biffen: I do not accept that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is displaying an interest in warmongering rather than in peace. The hon. Gentleman's comment does not suggest that such a debate would start off in the spirit of peace and goodwill, as was his hope.
The House will shortly have a White Paper on defence which, although specifically in respect of the recent Falklands exercise, will be an opportunity to debate the wider issues which the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is on the Order Paper a series of motions which are essentially on matters of procedure—I refer to my own "Opportunities for Backbench Speakers (No. 2)" merely as an example—which seem to have raised widespread interest among all hon. Members? They imply that some of the less important, but none the less significant, aspects of our procedure deserve examination and even reform. Is there a possibility of at least a half day's debate in which to discuss those matters so that the House might give its general view on the motions that have been tabled?

Mr. Biffen: I recognise the dedication, and indeed, the great knowledge, that my hon. Friend brings to this issue. I hope that he will not think that I am too neanderthal if I say that there is much to be said for the House digesting the fairly considerable reforms that it has recently been called upon to undertake. None the less, I shall consider my hon. Friend's point and I shall be in touch with him.

Mr. David Young: Without expressing any comment on what are considered to be "usual channels", may I reinforce the need for an urgent debate on the closure of colleges in the North-West? My constituents have expressed concern that these closures—for example, that of de la Salle—are mainly examples of religious discrimination and have nothing to do with political policy. Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the fact that last night his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said that it was not in his power to grant a debate and that his decision was irrevocable? In the spirit of religious tolerance which we exercise in Britain, a debate cannot wait any longer for the usual channels but should be concluded before the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Biffen: I recognise the serious constituency import of the problem for the hon. Gentleman. As he is anxious not to rely upon the smooth workings of the usual channels, may I say that there is plenty of scope for him in the Adjournment debates which will take place before the House goes into recess and that I wish him every success in his efforts in that direction?

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Can my right hon. Friend say what progress has been made in the review by Lord Franks of the Falklands operation? Bearing in mind the fact that his study is behind by several months, can my right hon. Friend say when it will be presented to the House?

Mr. Biffen: I have no idea of the commission's progress, but I assure my hon. Friend that as soon as the findings are reported, they will be placed before the House at the earliest appropriate moment.

Mr. Jim Craigen: When the Leader of the House decided that the fair wages resolution should be debated next Thursday, did he know that the Select Committee on Employment had already requested the Secretary of State for Employment to appear before it on Wednesday 15 December, so that the issues at stake could be made known to the House? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the Select Committee should be given the opportunity to report to hon. Members so that debates are better informed? If so, will he agree to postpone next Thursday's debate?

Mr. Biffen: I am certainly anxious to protect and develop the relationship of Select Committees to Government business in general. However, Government business cannot necessarily wait on the processes of Select Committees. The House was informed at the same time as the TUC, six months ago, about the Government's proposals and intentions. There has been plenty of time to consider the matter.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope to call those who have been standing in their places if questions are brief.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: In view of what is properly characterised as the prevailing state of uncertainty surrounding Government trading policy as a result of the GATT talks and the recent Common Market summit meeting, and given the importance of trading policy for Britain's political and economic relations with its partners round the world, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate to discuss such issues?

Mr. Biffen: I note that point. Indeed, it echoes what was said in the Chamber two weeks ago about the importance of an early debate. The first step must be to have the report of the Council of Ministers, the decisions made about the MFA and the ministerial statement. We can then consider the other issue in the light of what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade has to say.

Mr. Robert Parry: Will the right hon. Gentleman contact the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for the Environment to have urgent discussions with the leader of Liverpool city council about the proposed closure of the Liverpool welfare rights centre? That centre receives public funding and provides an essential service to pensioners, one-parent families, the sick and disabled and those who are in despair, particularly in the inner areas. That service must be kept open.

Mr. Biffen: I note the hon. Gentleman's points and I shall ensure that they are conveyed to the appropriate Ministers for their consideration.

Mr. Peter Viggers: My right hon. Friend referred to the forthcoming White Paper on defence. He will have seen press comment that it may be published on 15 December. Can he let us know whether there will be a statement and when a debate will take place?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend may care to note that Hansard—unlike the press—tells us that the date is 14

December. That was announced in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). Obviously there will have to be a debate and it will be a matter for discussion.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to the important question raised about the Franks commission by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren), does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that in reply to me the Prime Minister said that she hoped that the Franks commission would report within six months of being set up? It is not surprising, given the amount of evidence that I and many others have submitted to the commission, that rumours about delay persist. May I make a constructive suggestion? Two experienced clerks of the House should be added to the staff of the commission. If rumour is right, it is not only the commission's members that are overburdened with work but the staff. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider adding two experienced clerks—for whom there is no problem of secrecy—to the secretariat of the Franks commission? Would not that help?

Mr. Biffen: It would be discourteous to refuse to consider the hon. Gentleman's point and, of course, I shall contact those involved about it. However, I am not sure that the matter falls within my responsibilities. Indeed, there are weighty arguments for letting the commission deliberate without any sort of pressure from Parliament.

Mr. John Ward: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many people are anxiously awaiting the proposals for domestic rating reform. Will he arrange a debate as soon as possible so that we can put further pressure on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to introduce the proposals with all possible speed?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend will recollect that Tuesday's business will be devoted to the rate support grant supplementary report. Therefore, he need not wait long to make the powerful speech that he harbours.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: Given the points made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Young), will the right hon. Gentleman give us an undertaking about the nature of the Government's policy or let us know whether we shall be able to debate the future of Catholic teacher training colleges?

Mr. Biffen: I am fully seized of the importance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to that subject and I hope that his point will be covered by negotiations through the usual channels.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In these hard and testing times, it is difficult for the Treasury Bench to act as Santa Claus and to give the country everything that it wants at this time of year, but does my right hon. Friend understand that many Members of Parliament are young fathers or young grandfathers who have to go on their sleighs to parts of the country that are unknown to, and disregarded by, the metropolis? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that in the last week before the recess, there should be light business?

Mr. Biffen: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to come to the House next week to condemn without qualification an


outrage? I refer to the wanton invasion of Maseru, the capital of Lesotho, by South African troops. More than 30 people have been killed, including five women and two children. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the right hon. Lady to undertake urgent discussions with the Government of Lesotho to see how we can provide for the defence of that friendly Commonwealth country, and prevent future aggression?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly ensure that those points are conveyed to the appropriate Ministers.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I press my right hon. Friend about the MFA? Will he go further and say that the Goverment will soon find time for a debate on this vital issue, as the clothing and textile industry is one of our largest employers and further thousands of workers in the industry may find themselves without work during the next few weeks unless there is a satisfactory outcome to the MFA? Will my right hon. Friend also ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make a statement in the House about how someone who is serving a term of imprisonment can apply to undertake a university course and to obtain an accommodation allowance while on day release from prison?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that hy hon. Friend's latter point is of much greater significance than I can immediately grasp, but I shall ensure that the Secretary of State is apprised of it. Two weeks ago, I gave the idea of a debate a pretty fair wind and that remains my position, but a debate would be more appropriate if the MFA talks had been concluded first and if my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade could first return to the House to report on them.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the position after the Secretary of State's statement on the steel industry? Is he aware that, if the BSC had to implement Government decisions and statements before the House had had a chance to debate them, it would be most unsatisfactory?

That is particularly so when it is extremely unlikely that the statement will be simple. If it is simple, it will be all the more important to debate it before any action is taken.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but he must realise that it conflicts with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis). However soon we have the statement, it must be fairly close to the recess. However, I note what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Leader of the House will be aware that some time ago I mentioned the need for a statement about the Bank of England's involvement in bailing out the Argentine economy, which will result in some of the money, during the cooling-off period and the rescheduling of the debts, being used to pay for Exocet missiles from France. That shows the hypocrisy of the Government Front Bench.
Is the Leader of the House aware that the Export Credits Guarantee Department is in a terrible mess and that a firm in my constituency, Davis's of Langwith Junction, has a contract with Nigeria, which does not have the money to pay for it because it is one of the 90-odd nations now rescheduling their debts? The result is that the Crown Agents have led that firm to the deal and that the case will soon land on a Minister's desk. If the Government can find time to talk about increasing bus fares, they should make statements about the big money that is going adrift because of world banking arrangements.

Mr. Biffen: If we have a trade debate—I hope that we shall—the operations of the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the difficulties that have arisen, for example in Nigeria, will be germane. As to the hon. Gentleman's other points, I shall ensure that they are referred to the appropriate Minister.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) to make his Standing Order No. 9 application, may I tell the House that I dislike interrupting an hon. Member in full flow, but we must all try to abide by parliamentary language when we express our feelings.

South Wales Miners (Strike Action)

Mr. Ray Powell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The decision by the South Wales National Union of Mineworkers delegate conference yesterday to call for strike action on 17 January due to the National Coal Board's refusal to make available adequate capital investment for the general development and maintenance of the South Wales coalfield.
The matter is specific because the 24,000 members will take strike action on 17 January. The action has been called against a background of deteriorating conditions in numerous pits in South Wales as a direct result of the lack of capital investment, the fear of 18 colliery closures in the short term and the complete devastation of the South Wales coalfield.
The matter is undoubtedly important because of the consequences to other vital industries in Wales. They will be affected by the action caused by the frustration of the months of negotiations between the NUM and the National Coal Board for more investment in the South Wales coalfield, for general development and maintenance, for a new mine at Margam, for recruitment at collieries in desperate need of additional miners and for the opening of new coal faces. It is also important that the Secretary of State for Wales refuses to meet the officers of the South Wales miners to discuss the problems that I have mentioned, which carry the consequential danger of the destruction of industry in South Wales.
The matter is urgent for several reasons. The first is the lack of time for the House to debate the matter before the Christmas Recess. The second is the fact that the strike will take place on the day that the House returns so that we shall have little opportunity to persuade the miners to take alternative action. Thirdly, the threat of the strike will worry business men and many thousands of people during the festive period.
I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that, like me, you are a miner's son, and that, therefore, you will share my

concern for the future of the South Wales coalfield and acknowledge the essential need for a debate. I hope that I have shown that the matter is specific, undoubtedly important and essentially urgent and that you, without giving reasons, will be kind enough to grant my request.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
The decision by the South Wales National Union of Mineworkers delegate conference yesterday to call for strike action on 17 January due to the National Coal Board's refusal to make available adequate capital investment for the general development and maintenance of the South Wales coalfield.
Before I deal with the application, may I say to the hon. Gentleman, who reminded me that I am a miner's son, that I am very proud of the fact, but it has nothing to do with the application. I must follow the rules of the House and not any emotional ties that I may have. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand it when I tell him that, under Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

SALMON FISHERIES (PROTECTION) (SCOTLAND)

Sir Marcus Kimball, supported by Mr. Hugh D. Brown, Sir Peter Mills, Mr. Stephen Hastings, Sir Hector Monro, Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke, Mr. David Myles and Mr. Alexander Pollock, presented a Bill to amend the law in regard to the protection of salmon in Scotland and in the River Tweed; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 January 1983 and to be printed. [Bill 39].

Orders of the Day — National Insurance Surcharge Bill

Considered in Committee.

[MR. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

Clause 1

REDUCTION OF NATIONAL INSURANCE SURCHARGE

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out 'In' and insert
'Subject to subsections (1A) and (2) below, in'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
Government amendment No. 2.
Amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 2, at end to add
'other than contributions payable in respect of direct works departments of local authorities'.
Government amendment No. 3.

Mr. Wakeham: Government amendment No. 1 amends the first clause of a short Bill that we debated recently. Perhaps I may summarise its objectives quickly. It provides for a further reduction in the national insurance surcharge to a rate of 1½ per cent. from April 1983. It also provides for the national insurance surcharge payable in the current year, 1982–83, to be reduced by an amount equivalent to approximately ½ per cent. Although it is a short Bill, its benefits are widespread.
The amendment makes local authorities and some related bodies that are financed partly through the rate support grant liable to pay national insurance surcharge at 2½ per cent. in 1983–84. Subsequently, local authorities must pay the rates applicable to other employers of 1½ per cent. The reduction will be taken into account when settling the rate support grant. The other amendments are consequential. Amendment (a) will be moved by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and I shall not speak to it until after the right hon. Gentleman has spoken.
During the debate on Second Reading I explained the reason for the amendment. The Government intend that the changes in the national insurance surcharge should be neutral in their effect on the financing of public sector bodies, leaving them neither better nor worse off than before the change. For central Government and nationalised industries this result will be achieved by reducing their cash limits and external financing limits both for 1982–83 and for 1983–84. We have made no secret of the fact that the purpose of the Bill is to help the private sector.
The effects of the overall action, including the clawback from the public sector, will be to concentrate the benefits of a considerable reduction in the costs of employing labour on the productive private sector. The benefits will be considerable—about £1 billion in 1982–83 and £1½ billion in 1983–84—as a result both of this Bill and

of the reduction introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the previous measure.
The precise effects will depend upon how employers choose to use this opportunity. Many employers in domestic markets may choose to pass it on in lower prices. This will benefit consumers and in turn lead to a higher level of consumer demand and more orders for industry. Employers will retain part or all of the benefit and, as a result, they are likely to increase their expenditure, particularly on stock building and employment. Overall, the benefits can be expected to be seen in higher output in employment and in improvement in company profitability.
4.15 pm
Local authorities will continue to pay at 3½ per cent. for 1982–83, as happened when the rate was reduced earlier this year. We had originally intended that they should pay at 1½ per cent. for 1983–84 and that the provisional 1983–84 rate support grant settlement, which was based on a 2½ per cent. rate, should be recalculated accordingly. After further consideration and consultation with local authority associations we decided that, rather than disturb those calculations at this late date and to ensure equitable treatment for all local authorities, it would be better to leave the present rate support grant calculations as they stand and to provide for the local authorities to pay for 1983–84 only at a rate of 2½ per cent. This procedure will be identical to that adopted earlier in the year when the rate was reduced.
The effect of the Bill and the amendments under discussion is that local authorities collectively and individually will be neither better nor worse off as a result of the changes in the surcharge.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I should like to refer to amendment (a) to amendment No. 2, standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Bill introduces a further reduction in the national insurance surcharge from 2½ per cent. to 1½ per cent. from 1983. We note that the national insurance surcharge will be applied differently to local authorities and public industry than to private industry. My amendment deals with the direct labour organisations.
It is right to examine the way in which the nationalised industries are being treated. The Minister of State, Treasury, in moving the amendment, said that the purpose of the Bill is to help the private sector and to help the "productive private sector". He will be aware that many areas within the nationalised industries are productive. A number of such areas compete with the private sector.
The differentiation within the productive sector between private and public appears to us iniquitous. We deplore the way the measure has been devised.
If the Government had accepted the original amendment that we moved on 5 May 1982 this tedious Committee stage debate would have been unnecessary. Had the Government accepted the amendment then, or even the year before on 14 July 1981, we would have saved much time and the Bill would have been unnecessary.
My amendment deals with the direct labour organisations. At present, they have a 1 per cent. disadvantage. I understand that in 1983 and 1984, the disadvantage will disappear within the totality of the rate support grant. We do not know at this stage—I suppose


that not even the Minister of State knows at this stage—how that will be taken into account. Therefore, we cannot discuss the matter in detail, but we can make one or two assumptions.
The disadvantage for 1983–84 will amount to 1 per cent.—as it is now—between the direct labour organisations and those private construction industries that may be tendering for precisely the same type of work. Between January and March 1983 the disadvantage, as a result of clause 1, will increase to 2 per cent. If the national insurance surcharge is abolished in the next Budget without any rate support grant offset, the disadvantage will increase to 2½ per cent. I am discussing not theoretical matters but the tendering by direct labour organisations for precisely the same type of work as outside construction firms, when their premises may be within a few hundred yards of each other. Between January and March the former will be at a 2 per cent. disadvantage. We see no justification for that.
The Minister of State will have seen representations that we have received from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. It makes the strong point about the unfairness of the disadvantage. It cannot be right that as a result of this measure one tenderer is put at a disadvantage. We have received a further note from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—I understand that the Minister has also received it. The association has not had time to consider all the detail, but it has hinted at what it envisages will be further disadvantages.
I should like to quote from a letter from Mr. Martin Pilgrim on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. It says:
For the whole of 1983–84 local authorities will be paying MS at 2½ per cent. The private sector—with whom DLOs must compete—will be paying 1½ per cent. This extra cost directly depresses the rate of return achieved by the DLO, but the problem goes further than this. DLOs will lose tenders by the amount of the NIS differential. For example"—
Mr. Pilgrim then gives some of the information which has come to light.
We can understand that at this early stage there will not be much information, but it will be made available both to the councils concerned and to the Ministers involved over the period up to the next Budget. We shall be even better equipped to continue this confrontation with the Minister in the months ahead than we are now.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has had only a short time to consider the matter. Mr. Pilgrim's letter continues:
Two recent cases reported to the Association involve tenders of over £0·5m which were lost by the impact of the present NIS disadvantage since August 1982. If DLOs lose contracts their total viability is threatened. DLOs can operate in a competitive environment but only if that competition is fair. A 1 per cent. NIS differential is not fair competition.
As the Minister knows, the organisations are under an obligation to compete fairly. It is wrong to place them under a burden and then directly to give the private sector a head start. No one can reasonably object to fair competition, but unfair competition as a consequence of Government legislation is clearly and transparently wrong. I hope that the Minister will make inquiries to discover what is happening to contracts that will go out to tender over the next few months and seek a proper remedy in the next Budget.
We welcome the national insurance surcharge reduction. It is a pity that the Government did not respond to our earlier demands for a reduction. We shall be pressing them for a further reduction. I may have some further comments to make when the Minister has replied to the issues that I have raised. It may be necessary to debate whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, but that will depend on the Minister's reply.

Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) asked whether the nationalised industries were being penalised. It is the Government's view that they are not. They will pay the same rate of surcharge as the private sector. The adjustment to their external financing limits is made to leave the industries' underlying financial position unchanged. The limits reflect the Government's assessment of the industries' need for external finance. As the national insurance surcharge cut will increase the industries'internal resources, their need for external resources is correspondingly reduced. It is right that we should reduce the external financing limits. It does not follow that the industries will necessarily be placed at a competitive disadvantage.
If a private sector firm uses the benefit of the surcharge reduction to reduce its borrowing, and a nationalised industry does the same, they are in precisely the same position. If a nationalised industry has a substantial change in its competitive position, for whatever reason, the Government can make an appropriate change in its external financing limit. It would be a major and unacceptable change in the control exercised by the Government over nationalised industries for the Government to operate in any other way. Nationalised industries are controlled by external financing limits that are settled between them and the Government. It cannot be logical for there to be a change of this sort in the circumstances of a nationalised industry without the Government considering the EFLs.
If the change had been the other way around, the nationalised industries would have been looking to the Government and suggesting that the EFLs should be adjusted. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's charge in respect of nationalised industries.
The effect of the Government's amendment is to make local authorities liable to the national insurance surcharge at 2½ per cent. in 1983–84 for all their employees, including those in direct labour organisations. The amendment seeks to reduce the rate for employees in direct labour organisations. The amendment is defective in a substantial way. There is no definition of a direct works department either in the Bill or in any other legislation. Furthermore, no provision is made for employees who work partly in direct works and partly elsewhere.
I make no criticism of the right hon. Gentleman for not being able to frame a watertight amendment, because we do not see how the difficulties can be overcome. There is no such thing as a direct labour organisation in law that is in any way analogous to a private building or engineering contracting company. A direct labour organisation in law is an organisation that is part of the parent authority, and it has no independent legal personality. That is why it is impossible to separate something called a direct labour organisation from the rest of a local authority and to treat it as a independent entity, which it is not. Nor is there a standard direct labour organisation in the sense of a particular type of direct works organisation.


Some councils may choose to organise their direct labour work under one unitary organisation covering highways, building and other work. Others may form separate organisations for building, highways and other work. Others may prefer to attach a small direct works group to various service functions such as housing and recreation.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Minister saying that he is not granting a reduction in the national insurance surcharge to direct labour organisations because of the difficulties of defining them?

Mr. Wakeham: No, that is not the reason. I am explaining why there is extreme difficulty in doing what the right hon. Gentleman seeks to do, even if he can persuade me that it is the right thing to do. I shall not rest my case on the legal difficulties, substantial though they are. We can see no practical way of achieving what the right hon. Gentleman wants.
Part III of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 says nothing about a direct labour organisation as an organisational entity. The term "direct labour organisation" appears only in the title of part III, which merely defines types of work such as construction or maintenance work and building or engineering work covering areas such as housing, highways and sewerage works. The legislation applies to all authorities which carry out such work by using their own employees, except for local authorities with small direct labour organisations which employed 30 or fewer persons wholly or partly on construction and maintenance work in the previous financial year.
There is no alternative to tying the legislation to a definition of types of work. It is especially difficult to attach exemptions or special requirements to a direct labour organisation as an entity, because such an entity does not exist. For example, some small council employees spend some of their time on construction and maintenance work and some on activities that are outside the scope of a direct labour organisation. There is no logic in trying to exempt these people from a higher national insurance surcharge when many may spend most of their time working on activities that are outside the legislative requirement of compulsory competition with contractors. Issues such as the higher national insurance surcharge are best tackled by ministerial assurances, and the Department of the Environment has already—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: It has been brought to my attention that the Liverpool local authority has found a way round the problem by setting up a separate company. Are there not available variables in the form of DLO arrangements which the Minister could use if it were the Government's intention to ensure that local authorities obtained the benefit of the national insurance surcharge reduction?

Mr. Wakeham: I am glad that I did not say that it was impossible to act. I said that it would be very difficult. The Government would be unable to define such an exemption for direct labour organisations. I have made it clear that I am not resting my case on the definition, although that point is of some substance.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is fair to say that the Minister has destroyed his case.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I have. The most that the hon. Gentleman can say is that Liverpool—and in particular Merseyside—is in a different position from most of the other direct labour organisations in the country.

Mr. Eric Heifer: I was the chairman of the direct works department. An organisation was established within the corporation. It acted as a company and we endeavoured to keep the finances of the two bodies as separate as possible. There were certain ties from which we were unable to escape, but I fear that when the Conservatives took control of Liverpool they destroyed our efforts.

Mr. Wakeham: It is not sensible for me to argue about the affairs of Liverpool even if, as I suspect, the duly elected members of the authority at the time were likely to agree with my view as the desirable way forward.
The substance of the debate is the way in which direct labour organisations are treated by the Government, and not the initial point, which concerns the technical definition.
The competitive position of direct labour organisations compared with the private sector is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I know that he is having discussions with local authorities, and they have been told that in considering the rate of return achieved by local authorities Ministers will, in 1983–84, as in the current financial year, be prepared to accept explanatory notes concerning direct labour organisation revenue accounts which identify and quantify the effects of higher national insurance surcharges as agreed with the authorities' auditors. Correspondence and discussions are continuing with the local authorities to deal with this matter.
From information that I have received, I know that local authorities are coping reasonably well with the situation. There are problems and difficulties with some local authorities. These are exactly the points that should be the subject of discussion. My right hon. Friend will have to consider these explanations in looking at the accounts of direct labour organisations. I am sure that they will not be judged unfairly. I feel sure that he will take into account these factors, along with all the others, in making a judgment.

Mr. John Horam: How can explanations overcome the fundamental commercial fact of direct labour organisations replacing higher costs as a result of Government measures? That is the principle about which we are concerned. The Government should ensure that competition is on a fair basis. It seems extraordinary that some bureaucratic piece of bumf or explanation can override that fundamental fact.

Mr. Wakeham: I take that point, and it is to deal with it that these discussions are taking place. The Government recognise that some direct labour organisations will be put at a disadvantage. There are many other factors to be taken into account. That is why these items are to be shown in the accounts.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Minister will be aware that at the moment a number of tender documents are being prepared by direct labour organisations to cover the period when the national insurance surcharge will be reduced for their competitors, but not for them. What will he tell those people? It is all very well to ask for the explanatory


memoranda some time next year, but they should be supplied now, when the documents are being sent out. These decisions will be made long before these explanatory memoranda are even devised, let alone accepted by the Treasury.

Mr. Wakeham: That is understood by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. He is having discussions with the local authorities to establish the best way forward. I have no doubt that the right way forward is to carry on with the discussions. It would be unreasonable to anticipate the results of those discussions. I am certain that my right hon. Friend is listening and talking in a sympathetic fashion to try to find a solution to the problem that arises under the existing legislation.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would it be in order for the Minister to give an undertaking today that there will be adjustments to the rate support grant to compensate local authorities for the losses derived from uncompetitive tendering?

Mr. Wakeham: Certainly not. The Government have made it clear that the purpose of this relief is to give additional relief to the private sector. If we reduce the relief to the private sector because we give additional relief to the public sector, even if the unsatisfactory nature of definitions could be overcome, that would reduce the relief to the private sector.

Mr. Heffer: On the basis of what has been said, is it not clear that this is sheer political prejudice?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. The amendment fails to deal with the problem. To suggest that the problem is one of sheer political prejudice is substantially to understate the nature of the problem. The Government are giving relief to the private sector, but do not intend to give relief to the public sector. They intend to leave the public sector in the same position as it was before—neither advantaged nor disadvantaged. We recognise that where direct labour organisations are in competition with private companies, local authorities envisage a problem. They are in discussion with my right hon. Friend and I very much hope that a satisfactory solution can be worked out.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In dealing with the European Coal and Steel Community, the Community has set the objective of removing national aid to create conditions of free and fair competition. Does the Minister not accept as a result of this measure he may well be offending the spirit, if not the letter, of some obscure European directive, which up to the present time has not been brought before the House? Can he give an assurance that that is not the case? If it is, he should return with a new measure to reverse what is proposed.

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is the greatest expert in obscure pieces of legislation concerning the European treaties. I do not think that I am in a position to answer a hypothetical question.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman's replies have been far from satisfactory. There is no need for these complicated explanatory notes. All that needs to be said is that there are hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of people in direct labour organisations who are paying an unfair and

unequal rate of national insurance surcharge, which puts them at a disadvantage against the private sector, because of the Government's predilection for private initiative as opposed to excellent, worthy and sustained public initiative.
That is what it is all about. The long discussions about how the accountants will agree to the footnotes at the bottom of the accounts are unnecessary, because those footnotes merely need to state the number of direct works organisation employees at so much per head.
I fail to see the necessity for these lengthy discussions. The Minister can surely say now that my version of what the explanatory notes should say will be accepted by the Government. If so, we shall be happy to leave the matter there.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I can say any more than was said in the letter that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services sent to the local authorities. He said that he would be prepared to accept explanatory notes to these accounts, and he has told me that he will take them into consideration. He is confident that local authorities will not be unfairly judged as a result. It is neither possible nor right to go any further than that, except to hope that there will be a satisfactory conclusion to the discussions.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Minister is courteous, listens to what is said and tries to find a solution. I am sorry that he is unable to accept my suggestion, which is the most obvious, simplest and clearest way of giving information so that those who tender from tomorrow morning will be able to do so on the correct basis.
I am not sure why the Minister is unable to accept that suggestion, because his remarks came close to doing so. At any rate, will he accept it for the period January to March, when direct works organisations will be at a great disadvantage? During that period the tenders that are now in preparation will be put out to offer. By accepting this further suggestion the minds of the tenderers will be put at rest, because they will know that, at least for some of these contracts, the explanations need refer only to the extra national insurance surcharge paid by direct labour organisations in excess of what is paid by private firms.

Mr. Wakeham: Persuasive as the right hon. Gentleman is, I cannot be drawn any further, but I shall ensure that the attention of my right hon. Friend is drawn to his remarks. The discussions with the local authorities will take place with all possible speed, and those are just the sorts of points that will be taken into account.

Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment: (a), at end add
'other than contributions payable in respect of direct works departments of local authorities'.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'Subsection (1) above has' and insert
'Subsections (1) and (1A) above have'.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Mr. Wakeham: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 13, leave out from 'paid' to 'the' in line 14 and insert
'in the tax year 1982–83'.

The Chairman: With this we may take Government amendment No. 5.

Mr. Wakeham: These amendments would allow every employer liable to national insurance surcharge for 1982–83 to have the benefit of the reduction for that year. As the Bill is drafted, eligibility for this reduction is confined to those employers liable to the surcharge for the period 4 January to 5 April 1983. Amendment No. 5 is a consequential drafting amendment.
As I explained on Second Reading, the reduction was confined in this way to serve the aim of giving the additional help to going concerns, but on further consideration we decided that in certain cases this provision would be too harsh in its impact. For example, where a business continued but there was a change of employer during 1982, the old employer would not qualify for any relief and the new employer could claim relief only on those payments that he had made in the year. There might also be cases where no liability to surcharge arose for the qualifying period of 4 January to 5 April—for example, with a seasonal business. To avoid any risk of withholding the full benefit from deserving cases, we have decided that the simplest and most practical approach is to extend the qualifying period in clause 1(3) so that anyone who paid national insurance surcharge in 1982–83 would qualify for the relief.
That is the effect of the amendments. I cannot put a figure on the cost of this change, but it will be small and will not alter the estimate of £350 million as the cost of the relief in 1982–83.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Opposition have nothing against the amendments, but it is reasonable to refer to the complications that are unnecessarily involved in these changes, especially when the matter could have been dealt with satisfactorily in the Finance Act at the time of the Budget.
There are a number of cases where employers change, and, sadly, under the present Government, many firms also go into receivership. That is something that we shall have to look at because of the increasing numbers involved. It is sad that we must make such provisions, but I understand the need for them, and accept them.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'the tax year 1982–83' and insert 'that tax year'.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Mr. Wakeham: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House. Although it is short, the benefits that will flow from it will be great. The national insurance surcharge is and has always been an unpopular tax because it is a bad tax. It is a tax on jobs and was introduced by the previous Labour Government. They felt that it was necessary when their economic policy was in ruins. We opposed the surcharge when it was introduced and we still do.
When we came into office, the rate of surcharge was 3½ per cent. In the Finance Act 1982, we cut the rate to

2½ per cent. The Bill will cut it again, to 1½ per cent. Together, the two measures will reduce the costs of employing labour in the private sector by about £1½ billion in a full year. We have cut the rate of surcharge by as much as is considered prudent.
The substantial benefits of the cuts depend on their being made within a reasonably acceptable financial framework that ensures that the broad thrust of the Government's economic strategy is maintained. That is the only way to produce sound growth and real jobs. It is a long, hard struggle to clear up many of the problems in the British economy but we are slowly succeeding.
The Opposition have said that they would have abolished the surcharge. It is easy to say that. One should examine their record. They introduced the surcharge at a rate of 2 per cent. and subsequently increased it to 3½ per cent. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) says that he was reluctant, but the fact remains that he was a member of the Government that introduced it.
The Opposition have not suggested any ways of making up the lost revenue if the surcharge were abolished. That is not surprising as they are a borrowing party. They would go on borrowing and printing money while inflation sky-rocketed and the economy collapsed. I have no doubt that before long they would be knocking at the IMF's door, asking for more assistance.
The Bill is an integral part of our economic strategy. It will provide real benefit to industry and commerce. The House will know that the first benefits under the special reduction in surcharge for 1982–83 are due in February. I am most grateful for the help that we have received for the speedy passage of the Bill so that the benefits should not be delayed.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Minister of State referred to the way in which the national insurance surcharge was introduced in April 1977 and increased in October 1978. He will be aware that unemployment has increased by 2 million since then. He must also be aware that a change of such magnitude means that economic policies must now be examined in a slightly different way. We believe that it is necessary to reduce the surcharge because unemployment has increased and production fallen catastrophically.
The Minister is quite right to say that we intend to increase borrowing. That is prudent when there is so much under-utilisation of capacity. The surcharge is quite separate from the employer's contribution to the national insurance fund. It is now a tax that must be removed as soon as possible. It reduces the competitiveness of British industry in world markets and worsens the balance of payments because it is a charge on exports, not imports. It is especially damaging in the present circumstances. It is a labour cost which, at a time of incredibly serious unemployment, is of special importance. It is a tax on the jobs that we now need in large numbers. It reduces employment by making it more expensive for employers to take on new labour.
The national insurance surcharge was introduced as a temporary expedient. It was introduced in 1977 but the Government have kept it in force much longer than the Labour Government envisaged. It allowed the


Government of the day to raise revenue that was then needed, but in the light of reduced output it is no longer required.
It is essential that a large proportion of the direct benefits of the cut go directly to those industries that need them most. Manufacturing industry pays about half of the tax that is collected by the surcharge and the bulk of the remainder is paid by the construction industry which is also affected by the slump in investment.
The direct benefits of the cut will be reduced in many cases because the businesses concerned will pass them on to workers in the form of higher wages or to consumers in the form of lower prices. As the CBI has stated clearly, all that will depend on the state of the economy—and that will vary from one business to another. The CBI does not believe that a reduction in the national insurance surcharge will lead to a general increase in wage claims. Still less does it believe that there will be immediate increases in the rates that are negotiated. The CBI made that point and we thought that the Government would listen to it. I thought, therefore, that the Government might accept it.
Businesses vary greatly in their ability to reduce prices in response to a reduction in national insurance surcharge. At one extreme, many of those businesses that bear the brunt of international competition at home or in the export market have no freedom to charge anything other than the world market price. In those cases, the reduction in the surcharge and, most important, the further reduction that we look forward to in next year's Budget, will have its full effect on the profitability of the business and none on prices. At the other extreme, some businesses might pass on most of the benefit of the reduction in the form of lower price increases.
We must take those factors into account. That is why the Opposition believe that the abolition of the surcharge would be the best tax measure for the Government to take. That is in line with what the CBI says. We have constantly returned to this subject as it is the most important single measure that could help industry. We attach great importance to it. The Budget earlier this year was to have been a Budget to help jobs and industry. It has helped neither. That is why further action will be required.

Mr. Horam: As the Minister said, the national insurance surcharge is a bad tax. It was introduced by the previous Labour Government and it has done no good.
The Minister will be aware that the burden of the complaint against the Government is that they could have gone much further than this niggardly reduction. That is not merely the view of the Social Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Labour Party; it is shared by Constrvative Members such as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten). Moreover, industry, the CBI, chambers of commerce and everyone else who has a direct stake in and has his finger on the pulse of industry,

has gained the impression from the Government's niggardly approach that they pay more attention to interests in the City of London than to industry, commerce and business in the provinces of Britain.
The Government have forgone the opportunity to begin the controlled reflation most recently called for by the president of the World Bank. The unemployed and small and large business men will all pay the price for the Government's lack of foresight.
A second reason why the Government should have taken the opportunity to go further than they have in the Bill has emerged most clearly in the past week or so. It is the international dimension. If the Government maintain the severity of the financial squeeze that they have imposed over the past few years, the ability of Third world countries to repay their indebtedness will be affected. That in turn contributes to the worrying financial instability in all parts of the world. The Chancellor himself cannot be here today because he is taking part in some allegedly secret meeting of the Group of Five and the rest to discuss these very problems, which would be aided by some controlled reflation.
Moreover, as Third world countries are impoverished by their indebtedness, which is increased by the actions of the developed world, they are less able to purchase goods from this country. They cannot afford to buy many of our industrial and commercial products and services because they are hindered by the regressive policies of major developed countries. Therefore, we are simply cutting off our nose to spite our face.
As feeling grows throughout the world that we should consider in a more far-sighted way how to control and develop the world economy with a view to getting expansion back into world trade, we should take a less narrowly self-interested view than that adopted by the Government. The day will come when the narrowly restrictive policies pursued by the British Government in the past few years and by President Reagan over a similar period are seen to be extraordinarily damaging to the international economic climate on which we all ultimately depend for the success of our trade and industry. No country is more dependent on this than the United Kingdom, with 30 per cent. of total goods in exports and imports. Countries such as the United States, where only 4 per cent. of the total is represented by exports and imports, can afford to live in a protectionist world with an international climate as gloomy as it now is, but this country cannot. I therefore regret that the Government have not seen the international purpose as well as the narrowly domestic purpose in going further than they have in this case.
As the right hon. Member for Ashon-under-Lyne (Mr. Shelon) said, there is no doubt that we shall return to this time and again until it is proved yet again that the Government simply cannot see the broad picture in its full amplitude.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I remind the House that the Estimates before us are specific Supplementary Estimates and do not extend to the whole subject of Northern Ireland administration, nor to matters of security, which are the subject of motion No. 3.
Matters not covered by the Estimates cannot be debated. Of the matters covered, the scale of financial provision sought is sufficient to allow a wide debate on agriculture support, economic development and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Debate on the other matters in the order—agriculture, education, research and development, road services and non-contributory benefit—should be confined to the actual increases being sought beyond the original Estimates.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.
This order is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
The purpose of the draft order is to appropriate the 1982–83 autumn Supplementary Estimates of Northern Ireland departments, amounting in total to some £47 million. The 1982–83 Main Estimates, which were approved by the House on 16 July, amounted to £2,472 million. Total public expenditure in the Province this year is, of course, some £3·6 billion, taking into account non-voted expenditure such as that of the national insurance fund, the capital programme of the Housing Executive and expenditure by district councils. The schedule to the draft order describes the purposes of the supplementary provision sought.
I wish to apologise to the House for an error at sub-head B1 of Class II Vote 6 in the volume where the figure of 345 staff should read 511 staff. I apologise for this error, which was not discovered until after the Estimates had been printed. At this very moment a cheerful witch hunt is going on at the Department of Finance and Personnel to discover the identity of the person responsible.
Before dealing with the main features of the Supplementary Estimates, I should mention that more detailed information can be found in the Estimates volume, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is present in the Chamber, will attempt to reply to as many points as possible before the end of the debate. If any go unanswered due to lack of time, they will, as usual, be answered in correspondence later. I hope that that is acceptable to right hon. and hon. Members.
I shall deal with the main features of the draft order one by one. On 1 April, my hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House that a further £16 million of special aid would be made available during 1982–83 to aid Northern Ireland agriculture. In the Appropriation debate in July, my hon. Friend asked the House to note that the necessary provision for the measures would be taken in Supplementary Estimates when the detailed provision had been finalised. It has now been finalised and I think that in its final form it represents a substantial boost for an

important industry in Northern Ireland. I shall try to highlight the main ways in which the extra £16 million for agriculture will be spent.
Some £2·3 million of the £16 million assistance announced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State relates to the existing suckler cow subsidy and will fall, of course, on a United-Kingdom-borne Vote.
Of the remaining £13·7 million available in aid, some £12·3 million is likely to be taken up and the additional provision required is now sought in these Supplementary Estimates for Class I, Votes 1 and 2. This provision includes £1·9 million for continued measures to develop beef cattle production a very important aspect of the Province's agriculture—mainly through reductions in charges under the Department's artificial insemination service and beef recording and performance testing schemes, through aid for silage production and—not unimportantly, as grass is so important to the Province's agricultural economy—the liming of grassland.
The aid will also permit the continuation of the liquid milk subsidy, for which £7 million is being provided. This benefits milk producers in the Province by enabling the Northern Ireland milk marketing board to fix a higher wholesale price for milk going for liquid consumption without consumers in the Province having to pay a higher price themselves.
A total of £2·3 million is required for assistance to the intensive pig and poultry industries, taking the form of payments to operators of pig and poultrymeat processing plants in the Province, as well as egg packing stations. The main aim is to prevent any rundown in the pig, egg and poultry producing sectors of agriculture.
I listened with great interest last night to speeches of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about the importance to agriculture in the Province of a healthy pig industry, and a well maintained pig herd, and of the great importance of the export of livestock. To help this, and to help cattle and sheep raising, we introduced a new measure in 1982–83, which is a grassland improvement scheme for which £1 million is required.
The grassland improvement scheme has been introduced to encourage the improvement of grassland productivity. Initially, £2·5 million was allocated for this year but, due to the late introduction of the scheme, it is unfortunately expected that expenditure will not go above £1 million in the current year. However, that does not prevent a substantial quantity of grassland being improved this year. We estimate that about 3,000 hectares will be improved this year, which in the context of Northern Ireland, with its characteristically small field size, is extremely important.
It is a pleasing thing to fly over the landscape of Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I so often do, and look down on the agricultural landscape below. It is possible to pick out from the air where these agricultural improvements are taking place, and one can almost see the profusion of this new form of improved grassland agriculture spreading across Northern Ireland. One can experience it with the same sort of pleasure, as I know my hon. Friend does, as was experienced by improving agriculturists in the 18th century as they introduced the new agriculture, and the enclosed fields spread across the landscape.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Do the hon. Gentlemen have occasion to cross by air the Mourne area, and notice the new grazing that is being provided by the stoning of fields, a remarkable operation? Will the Minister or his colleagues be able to say whether that operation, which is as spectacular in its results, will come within the ambit of this new scheme?

Mr. Patten: If I may, I shall leave the details of the answer to my hon. Friend. Unfortunately the flight paths of the various and variegated aircraft do not often take us over the Mourne mountains, although I should like them to. However, as recently as last Monday when I was driving to and from Kilkeel, which is in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, I saw stoning in progress by the side of the road, and saw what an impressive form of activity it is.
New provision is also being made for a grant in aid to a new body, Seed Potato Promotions (Northern Ireland) Limited, which is replacing the seed potato marketing board. It has been set up to encourage increased efficiency in the seed potato industry.
I am glad to be able to report that there has been a substantial improvement in the incomes of most farmers in the province in 1981 and 1982. This has resulted from a combination of factors, including a reduction in the rate of cost inflation, lower interest rates, higher prices for most products and the special aid introduced under the scheme brought to the House by the Minister, which has helped to restore confidence a good deal in agriculture in the Province.
With regard to the administration vote of the new Department of Economic Development Class II, Vote 6, the £2·3 million provision sought by way of supplementary estimate is a consequence of the marriage of previously separate administrative votes that have been brought together on the formation of the new Department. It will not result in any increased public expenditure. The previous Department of Manpower Services Administration Vote, Class II, Vote 7, will be extinguished as the Department has been extinguished following the marriage of the Department of Manpower Services and the Department of Commerce.
The House will recall from an earlier debate on the Departments (Northern Ireland) No. 2 Order that the Department of Economic Development, which amalgamated the functions of the Departments of Commerce and of Manpower Services was created to improve the capacity of Government comprehensively to respond to the needs of industry in the Province, and to deploy the considerable resources available for industrial development purposes to the best advantage. After the brief experience of this new Department, the Government remain convinced of the need to have an efficient, effective and well co-ordinated machinery of government to deal with industrial questions. This small supplementary provision will facilitate the smooth transition to the new arrangements purely from a financial point of view. I stress that there will be no additional public expenditure.
The House will also be aware that the Department of Economic Development has as one of its constituent parts the new Industrial Development Board. The board oversees the industrial development functions in the province that were previously the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Development Agency—NIDA—and the Department of Commerce. During the passage of the

Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, right hon. and hon. Members were given the opportunity to comment on the new draft guidelines for the new board both here on the Floor of the House and in the Northern Ireland Committee.
I am pleased to be able to inform hon. Members that a set of definitive guidelines will shortly be issued to the board, and these take into account the wide range of representations that have been received from many interested parties such as the CBI, the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Northern Ireland Economic Council and the board itself. As a result of these representations, the Government are convinced that within the framework of these guidelines the board will bring a positive approach across a broad range of industrial development activity. We recognise that that is greatly needed.
That is not to say, however, that the Government believe that the creation of the Industrial Development Board by itself is the be-all and-end all of moves towards solving the Province's employment problem, as it is clearly not the sole answer. The Government are also continuing their efforts, through their overall national economic policies and the allocation of total Northern Ireland public expenditure, to ensure the revival of the Northern Ireland economy and to promote a climate more favourable to industry and employment, and to industrial enterprise of all kinds. In particular, the substantial amounts devoted to the industrial development programme of the Industrial Development Board and the local enterprise development unit, will continue to reflect the Government's commitment to tackling Northern Ireland's severe and deep-rooted economic problems.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have already ruled that it would be out of order for anyone taking part in the debate, including a Minister, to range across the whole of the Northern Ireland security problem which will be debated during a later debate when I shall also speak. Without stepping outside the bounds of that order I want to say one thing about the relationship between the security problem and the economic future of the Province. This week the House has heard many views, properly and forcefully made, about security in the Province.
Those people who commit acts of terrorism in the Province do not just have on their hands the blood of those people whom they have destroyed; they bear also the stain of the guilt of the destruction of hundreds of thousands of potential new jobs which do not go to Northern Ireland as a result of investment from overseas or from this side of the water. They have the livelihoods of the people of the Province on their hands. There are young people on the streets of the Province who do not have jobs because of terrorist activities which have inhibited inward investment in Northern Ireland.
I shall deal with what this set of Supplementary Estimates does for the infrastructure of Northern Ireland. I believe that the proposals are as good as for any other part of the United Kingdom, particularly for roads. I have listened in earlier debates to the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), who is not present in the Chamber, and to the right hon. Member for Down, South, speaking about the importance of a good and well maintained infrastructure in Northern Ireland to provide the framework for economic revival and rejuvenation which sometimes subsidies alone cannot bring. I believe that the additional provisions made in Class IV, Vote 1, dealing


with roads services, show the Government's determination to ensure that the Northern Ireland infrastructure, which is so important to its manufacturing and agricultural industries, is well maintained. There is an additional provision of £8·4 million sought for the construction and improvement of roads, bridges and car parks and for the repair of excessive damage to roads which resulted from last winter's severe weather conditions, the operation and maintenance of street lighting and public liability compensation for damage or injury.
The estimated provision for new construction of roads and bridges is being increased by £2·7 million to allow the completion of the extremely important link between the M1 and the M2 in Belfast and to finance essential roadworks in housing action areas in the Belfast areas of need scheme. It is a critically important area of Government expenditure in west Belfast.
The protracted periods of abnormally cold weather in the winter of 1981–82 caused severe damage to the structure and fabric of many of the Province's roads. It is considered essential, therefore, that additional funds are spent on making good the worst of the damage and preventing the deterioration of the road base. Accordingly, supplementary provision of £3·8 million is now sought to enable the Department of the Environment to carry out some of those urgent repairs.
Among other services for which additional provision is being sought in this vote, is the construction and improvement of car parks for which a further £1 million is required to meet existing contractual commitments.
Approval is being sought also for the application of a further £500,000 of receipts as appropriation-in-aid. The increased receipts which arise mostly from the sale of land will be appropriated in aid because some of the land is dependent on the completion of legal formalities and it is not easy to predict the amount of receipts from such sales at the start of the year. It is intended that that increase in receipts of £500,000 be applied against increases in expenditure on the construction and improvement of roads and bridges.
In Class X, Vote 2, we find a substantial sum of £22,331,000 for additional provision for social security non-contributory benefits. It is sought mainly for supplementary benefits. It is required because of the increase in the numbers of unemployed, with which all of us in the Chamber are familiar, and the increase in the number of beneficiaries in other categories. The increase in supplementary benefits is offset to some extent by the increase in the amount appropriated in aid of that expenditure and reductions in amounts that will be required for a number of other minor benefits. On information available in December 1982, it is estimated that payments of social security benefits in Northern Ireland during the present financial year, both from moneys provided directly by Parliament and from the national insurance fund, will again be approximately £945 million—just under £1 billion.

Mr. Clive Soley: Is it not a fact that the reason the Government are having so much trouble with their economic policy here and in Northern Ireland is that they cannot reduce public expenditure in the way that they wanted because they have to keep paying out more and more in unemployment benefit?

Mr. Patten: I should like to debate, under your benign eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the whole range of economic

matters. The hon. Gentleman's question seems to imply that there is a Pandora's box, but I must not go down that road. Social security payments in the Province are made in strict parity with those on this side of the water. Clients who go to social security offices, of which there are 33 in the Province, will have the help of extra staff who have been taken on to ensure that social security payments are made properly. In the past two years 568 extra staff have been taken on in social security offices in the Province. It is not an overall increase in staff in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. We remain on target for the reduction of the civil service over the next 18 months. We hope to arrive at the desired figure of 25,400 civil servants on 1 April 1984. We have been able to make reductions elsewhere in the Civil Service because of increased efficiency. An excellent service is given although there is a large number of people on the register.

Mr. Soley: The Minister said that benefits in Northern Ireland are in line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Does the Department of Health and Social Services intend to bring in the same form that is being introduced here with so much disfavour?

Mr. Patten: Which form?

Mr. Soley: The application form for unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit, which are now linked, which requires answers to about 40 questions.

Mr. Patten: The Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland is examining the multitudinous variety of forms in the Province and in many aspects the questions differ slightly from those asked on this side of the water although the net effect is the same. In the end everyone gets the same level of benefit.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): Why do the questions differ in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Patten: They differ for historic reasons. We are trying to iron out many of those differences, but it is a large task because of the many thousands of forms that exist. We are working hard.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister referred to the sum of £945 million paid to Northern Ireland. Can he give us a similar breakdown for a comparable area in England, Scotland or Wales?

Mr. Patten: I must not put words into the hon. Gentleman's mouth, but I suspect that he knows the answer. Financial provision for Northern Ireland is made in a unique way and it is therefore possible to isolate the level of expenditure for Northern Ireland in a way that is not possible for other parts of the United Kingdom. I have never tried and nor has any other Northern Ireland Minister since we have been in office.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister's answer. Does he accept that it is unfair to single out Northern Ireland as if it were getting some special treatment, whereas we prefer to be treated equal to other parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Patten: It is precisely because the Government wish to ensure that Northern Ireland is treated like any other part of the United Kingdom that so much money, which I fully support, is spent in Northern Ireland. That is why public expenditure in Northern Ireland amounts to


35 per cent. more per head than on this side of the water. I have perhaps been too precise. It is perhaps about one-third higher than on this side of the water.

Rev. Smyth: rose—

Mr. Patten: I shall, of course, give way, but this is an argument that could run and run.

Rev. Smyth: We are not comparing like with like. We are taking an across-the-board figure for England which covers deprived areas of the North and the more opulent areas of the South. There is a tendency to sit back and say "Look how well we are treating Northern Ireland. We are giving it more than England". It is an unfair comparison.

Mr. Patten: I do not seek to bring any element of unfairness into the argument. The figures are available. I use them myself only to demonstrate the care that the Government rightly give to people of an integral part of the United Kingdom. When, in Oxford, constituents of mine ask why the Government are looking after Northern Ireland in this way, I explain that Northern Ireland has special problems and special needs, just like Scotland, Wales and other less-favoured regions of the United Kingdom. We need therefore to spend money there. I use these figures illustratively to show that because so many soldiers are properly in Northern Ireland, so much money is spent there. It is a useful set of figures with which to explain the realities of Northern Ireland and our relationship with Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: When my hon. Friend, in his conversations with constituents, makes the comparison between expenditure per head in Northern Ireland and in England, does he compare the less prosperous regions of England and Scotland and Wales? The tendency is to compare expenditure per capita in Northern Ireland with that in England as a whole.

Mr. Patten: The figures that I have given showing public expenditure per head a third higher are comparisons with Great Britain as a whole and not with England. The figures have substantial variety built into them. If figures were available for Scotland and for Wales, they would undoubtedly be found convenient by hon. Members representing Scotland and Wales.
The last item in the draft order concerns the additional provision required for the Northern Ireland Assembly. This is contained in Class XI, Vote 1. The original provision in this Vote was made to cover expenditure on the residual functions of the Northern Ireland Assembly which was in a dissolved state between 1974 and 1982. The Northern Ireland Act 1982 passed on 23 July 1982 provided for the setting up of the new Northern Ireland Assembly. Elections to the Assembly took place on 20 October 1982. The Supplementary Estimate of £1·3 million now required is to fund the initial costs of setting up the Assembly and subsequent running costs during the current financial year.
The components of the Supplementary Estimate are salaries, allowances and expenses of members, the salaries of the Assembly staff, who number 96, and facilities for the recording of Assembly proceedings. I have read those proceedings with pleasure and find the reports of the

proceedings pleasing to the eye. The production of the Official Report is a triumph for those who work in the Assembly.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the hon. Gentleman expressing admiration for the typeface or the content? Has he read the dazzling accounts of Adjournment debates in which the Government and their agencies are criticised when there is no Minister present to defend them?

Mr. Patten: I was thinking purely of the typography, of the layout and of the quality of the paper. Now that the hon. Gentleman has lured me down this path, I wish also to say that I have read with great interest many of the proceedings of the Assembly. I have read with a certain amount of terror, as I may one day have to face the Assembly, the condemnations rained down on my head, as the Minister responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services, by an hon. Member who is not in his place today.
I know from the experience of my hon. Friend the Minister of State the value of the meetings that take place between Members of the Assembly and Ministers following his own appearance. Other matters that have to be taken into account are the refurbishing of the accommodation and the general running expenses of the Assembly.
I do not wish to re-embark upon the argument about comparisons between expenditure in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I can only say that facts are facts. Those facts are before the House. They cannot be wished away. Provided that no attempt is made to use the figures in an unfair manner, it is legitimate to draw them to the attention of the House. They demonstrate yet again the concern of the Government for the Province and the level of commitment that this country shows to the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Clive Soley: I associate my party and myself with the comments made by the Minister about the effects of terror on Northern Ireland. Enough has, I think, been said. Indeed, words are pathetically inadequate on such occasions. It is, however, right for the Minister to say that terror has an effect on the economy and destroys jobs. For some of the paramilitary groups, that is a real and well-thought-out intention. It has to be borne in mind, especially at times such as this, that unemployment provides a rich breeding ground for recruitment into paramilitary organisations. For that reason, hon. Members, when discussing these matters, must never forget the effect of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, in places such as Northern Ireland.
A significant sum in the appropriation order is to be expended on the Northern Ireland Assembly. I do not wish to dwell for any great length of time on this issue. The Opposition want the money to be used effectively and wish the Assembly to work. We think that it is unlikely to work well without an all-Ireland dimension. We should be happy to see the sum increased to allow the all-Ireland dimension to be present, perhaps through a parliamentary tier. That is one of many ways of winning consent for progress towards a united Ireland which would offer far more political, economic and social security to the people of Northern Ireland. This must be in the forefront of our minds.


The news on the economy of Northern Ireland is universally grim. There has been a slight upturn in the forecast for 1983 but it is insufficient to reduce adult unemployment. According to the new figures, compiled recently by the Secretary of State for Employment, unemployment now stands at 20·1 per cent. We have already made our views clear about the way in which the figures are compiled, and we shall watch and compare them with the old method of compiling them to see what the differences are.
Recently, Mr. Saxone Tate, the chief executive of the Industrial Development Board, said that in Northern Ireland some 60,000 new jobs were needed over the next five years simply to bring Northern Ireland up to the equivalent position of the worst region in the rest of the United Kingdom. In other words, 60,000 jobs are needed in the next five years just to bring the level up to the lowest in Britain. That is the measure of the job.
So the first and most important question that I put to the Secretary of State is: what is the Government's economic strategy? We must look at each of these Classes of Vote in its own right, and ask what we should do to improve the economy. I do not see any new jobs coming from incoming companies, and with investment going overseas, the outlook is bleak.
Class II, Vote 6, deals with the Department of Economic Development. It is becoming increasingly clear that the problems of Northern Ireland's economy are linked, and always have been linked, with the problems of the Republic of Ireland. Perhaps I might spend a brief moment on the successes of the Industrial Development Authority in the Republic. If we are to have successful economic development, which I have no doubt the Minister wants, I am sure that we can learn something from the Republic. The structure and incentives offered by that organisation have played a central role in the post-war industrialisation of Ireland, and the strategy—here is the message for the Government, because they do not have an industrial strategy for Northern Ireland, or indeed for the United Kingdom—is to shift Irish industry into products with higher added value, based on good quality and design, and aimed at specialist markets.
The success has been such that Ireland is one of the top five producers of microelectronic components. Half of all Japanese investment of Europe has been in Ireland. In 1980, industrial production grew there by 1·5 per cent., and the 1981 OECD forecast is 4 per cent. That leads me to conclude that if we are serious about helping the Department of Economic Development to create an effective economy in Northern Ireland, we need to have a similar strategy. I can think of no better way of starting than by working in conjunction with the Republic of Ireland, towards an all-Ireland economic development council. Then we could talk about the items in Class II more realistically than we do now.

Mr. John Patten: I do not wish to disturb the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the economic welfare of the Republic of Ireland, but might I ask him whether he regards the present levels of inflation, international debt and unemployment in the Republic of Ireland as desirable in Ulster?

Mr. Soley: No, I do not. That is why I prefaced my remarks with the comment that the positions of Ireland and Northern Ireland were linked, and that it is nonsense to

have two separate economic policies competing with each other in the island of Ireland. The way that the economies have been distorted by the existence of the border has been of no benefit to the people of the Republic or of Northern Ireland. It is time that we faced that fact.
Class I, Vote 2 deals with agriculture. Almost one third of the farms in Northern Ireland had negative incomes last year. The intensive farming sector is suffering as a result of our entry of the European Community. I might ask here, "Who has not?" We have joined an organisation that subsidies inefficient agriculture but not inefficient industry. That has been a problem for the whole of the United Kingdom, but in intensive farming it has produced special problems. The resultant rise in the cost of feedstuffs—the equivalent aid from the EC—was not sufficient to match that.
I am glad that the Minister confirmed that the £16 million aid per annum will continue. I welcome that, and I know that it will be welcomed in Northern Ireland by the Ulster Farmers Union and others. Can the Minister tell us whether there is anything in this Vote that will increase the amount available for items such as research into food production? That could be a growth area in the economic development of Northern Ireland. It is a classic case where research is needed, and we should like to know whether that is possible.
The farming community in Northern Ireland is worried about the lack of an integrated regional policy in Northern Ireland. A few moments ago the Minister spoke of the extra subsidy for milk. However, I am not sure whether it means that farmers will get the same subsidy per pint as the British farmer. Before, it was lower, and I am not sure whether, as a result of the Minister's announcement, it will be the same as for a farmer over here.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): My hon. Friend made no new announcements today. He drew attention to the fact that when I made the announcement to the House I said that it would be dealt with financially in these Estimates. Despite this additional money, the returns to the Northern Ireland milk producer are not as good per pint as they are to producers in Great Britain.

Mr. Soley: I thank the Minister for that information. We shall consider over time the difference that still exists and what can be done about it.
I understand that there is also anger about the less-favoured areas. I am not sure whether a formal application has been put in. Many farmers assumed that the application had been made, but then discovered that it had not. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will tell us whether the application has been formally launched, and if not, why not and when it will be made. Also, on the less-favoured areas, there has been secrecy about the boundaries which were drawn up some three years ago. I know that a number of people in Northern Ireland hope that that secrecy will be removed. It is bizarre not to know the boundaries, and there would need to be a good reason for not making them known.
I shall say a word about Class X, Vote 2, the Department of Health and Social Services. Recently, the Northern Ireland branch of Gingerbread, the association for one-parent families, wrote to the Prime Minister on behalf of single parents. About 11 per cent. of all families in Northern Ireland are single-parent families, and of that


11 per cent. about 70 per cent. exist at or below the poverty line. So this is a matter of singular importance. In its letter to the Prime Minister, Gingerbread made several specific points. It asked that child benefits and one-parent benefits should not be deducted from supplementary benefits. It also asked for a radical revision of the benefit rate, and said that that revision should be upwards. It also asked that one-parent benefit should take account of the fact that the household costs of the single parent are similar to those of the two-parent family. I stress that problem. I realise that the Minister cannot change it overnight, but it is bizarre to assume that the costs of a one-parent household are less than those of a two-parent household. If anything, the reverse is true. I hope that the Minister will consider that problem.
I understand that there is also concern about regulations applying to school uniform grants outside the Belfast area. School meals regulations must be changed to allow all those on low incomes to benefit. I hope that the Minister will comment on that—later, if not now. I know that I have asked some specific questions, to which the Prime Minister's office may well be devising the answers, but I am sure that at some stage Gingerbread in Northern Ireland would like to know the Government's views.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: We all receive representations in general terms from these organisations about the level of benefits. Clearly, as the hon. Gentleman said, level of benefit is of crucial importance. However, does he agree with me that in many one-parent families what is often lacking is special attention to the actual circumstances of the particuar case and that these organisations could do more than they do to bring to the attention of those who can offer that special attention the individual cases upon which they build their general submission? It is often difficult to get out of those bodies instances in one own's constituency which one would be only too glad to investigate and follow up.

Mr. Soley: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. As a constituency Member of Parliament in Northern Ireland, he will have greater knowledge of that matter than I. There are specific areas. One, which I have not yet investigated fully but would like to, and of which he may have some knowledge, is the position of widows with young children, who have a special problem. I will undertake to bring the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of Gingerbread in Northern Ireland. I shall ask for a response to this point, which was fair.

Mr. John Patten: In his plans to drive an unwilling Province into a united Ireland, is the right hon. Gentleman keen to see the harmonisation of social security payments in the North with the much lower ones obtaining south of the border?

Mr. Soley: I do not accept for one moment that it would be an unwilling Province. The emphasis is on consent. We stick with that consent. I have no doubt that in my time we can win that consent. I am keen on the process of harmonisation. It must be begun as a sensible, coherent policy. The Government are not going down that road. That is clear to me, although it is not clear to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and some of his colleagues. While the Government of the United

Kingdom are responsible for Northern Ireland, it is the duty of all Members of Parliament to see that the people there get no less a performance from the Government and the House than do other people in the United Kingdom. When I have the policies that I want, we shall do things in the way that I have outlined. It will be with consent.
Will the Minister tell us more about his energy strategy, especially in view of the lignite deposits, which were referred to recently? That is an important part of economic development. I do not expect the Minister to make an announcement on the recently announced finds, but I am struck by the fact that about 90 per cent. of Northern Ireland industry depends on fuel oil for heating, steam raising and process. I gather that a number of firms have made applications to convert their plants from oil to coal. I understand that the Government have an oil-coal conversion grant scheme. The question that is being asked at the moment is whether that scheme can be continued. I gather that it is not to continue at the moment. Is the Minister prepared to introduce a new scheme or, at the least, will he allow the outstanding £50 million, which has not yet been allocated, to be used?
We must have a clear guidance from the Government on the Lear Fan Company. I do not want to say anything that complicates the matter. There have been rumours in the press about the company. Nothing could be worse than if the rumours were allowed to continue. We need a clear commitment from the Government on their policy for Lear Fan, how much the grants are, how frequently they are given and the control over the use of that money. The Minister should make statements on those matters frequently. I gather that the finance is running at about £1 million a month. If there is undue secrecy about the finance or use of the finance, that will inevitably feed rumours. As we know from the experience of other companies that have been regarded as leaders in the economy, there could be real difficulties, which we would not want and which would not be necessary.
We are far from satisfied that the Government have a coherent economic strategy for the development of Northern Ireland. I am far from satisfied that they have one for the United Kingdom as a whole. The position in Northern Ireland is so desperate that the time is long overdue for the Government to come forward with an industrial strategy that will do something about unemployment. However much we have our own views about political solutions, at the end of the day the economic solutions are also of great importance to the political and social stability of that area.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I regret that I rise to take part in the debate in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who was at the service of the House until a late hour last night and who I know has a contribution to make to the debate on a subject which is of common interest in his constituency and mine and which was referred to by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley)—the delimitation of the less-favoured areas.
I think that I ought to tell the House that my hon. Friend left London early today to attend the funerals of his constituents who had been killed in the late outrage. It will be his endeavour to participate, if physically possible, in the debate, but the House should understand that his absence and the absence of one or two other of my


colleagues from these Benches derives indirectly from political events and political causes that have engaged us in other contexts and other debates.
I want to avail myself of your indication, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the provision under Class XI for expenditure on the Northern Ireland Assembly enables us to refer at large—that was your expression—to that ill-fated constitutional experiment which has been imposed upon the Province. I do not intend to do so, however, at great length because the House will have an opportunity during the whole of tomorrow's sitting, if it needs so long, to consider that matter on the basis of a motion which I hope to move shortly after 9.30 tomorrow morning.
I will restrict myself to the effect of that constitutional enormity upon the House itself, for when the House passed the Northern Ireland Act 1982 it not only did a mischief to the Province but it did violence to the very principles by which the House itself is guided in its procedures and in the discharge of its responsibilities—that is to say, the link between the representative responsibility of Members of the House and the responsibility of Ministers to the House and through the House to the electorate.
I can avail myself as a starting point of the text of a letter which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wrote to the Presiding Officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It was published in the Official Report of that body for 30 November and a transcript was inserted at my request in yesterday's Official Report. As the Under-Secretary of State pointed out, I benefited from the clear typeface. That reminds me of the celebrated observation of the Emperor Napoleon on Mark Twain's map of Paris:
It is nice large print".
The right hon. Gentleman said:
Following devolution of powers to the Assembly, political heads of Northern Ireland Departments become answerable to the Assembly, as in 1974, but"—
here follow the important words—
until then accountability for all aspects of Northern Ireland affairs will lie to Parliament
That, of course, is indefeasible constitutional logic. The principle is indisputable. It was good that the Secretary of State stated it so candidly to the Assembly that he created. But of course the mere statement of that principle raises a number of grave questions, one of which is perhaps irremediable so long as that Assembly exists in its present irresponsible—I use the word in a literal and not amoral sense—and ineffective form. However, some other consequences may be, and I hope are, remediable by the action of the Government.
I come first to the most general. It is the one to which the Secretary of State addressed himself in his communication. He said:
The closer the Assembly seeks to model itself on Westminster as regards Parliamentary questions, adjournment debates and so forth, the more difficult it will be for me and my Ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to reconcile the constitutional obligation to Westminster with our wish to cooperate with the Assembly.
He went on:
I therefore hope that more flexible arrangements can be devised which, while recognising that the Assembly will seek to hear Ministers regularly, will also take account of our prior"—
that was not, I think, a pun—
and overriding responsibilities to Parliament.
I think that the Secretary of State is deceiving himself and, in the course of it, perhaps unintentionally deceiving the recipients of his communication. Of course it is an absurdity for an elected Assembly to have no

responsibilities to its constituents and to find itself debating their affairs, and the matters which concern them, in a vacuum, but then they have been told that from time to time—there was a conspicuous example a few days ago—the Ministers will descend from their Olympus and actually be "heard" by the Members of the Assembly. They might even condescend to answer questions which might be put to them by Members of the Assembly.
What will be the status of those colloquies`" Are the Ministers addressing that body as they address a body to which they are responsible? Clearly not. Are they, as Ministers do and ought to do, in this House, going to shape and adjust their actions and administration to what is said to them by the Members of that body? If so, there is an immediate and direct breach of the constitutional relationship between Members of the Government and Members of this House, because that relationship requires that it shall be to us, and to us alone, as elected representatives that explanation and justification of the Government's policies are offered and account taken of our representations in the manner in which Government proceeds. Indeed, it is a contradiction of the whole nature of debate that elected persons should debate in the hearing of those who have declared specifically, and correctly, that they have no responsibility to them. It is a breach and an affront to responsible debate as we know it in this House.
The Secretary of State must not be surprised if he finds that the frustration which was predicted in the truncated course of proceedings upon the Northern Ireland Bill is already felt by Members of that Assembly. They have been put in an impossible position. They have been invited to stand and have stood for an election as representatives. When they arrive as representatives they find themselves confronted by those who rightly say to them "We are not responsible to you. We are not responsible through you to your constituents. We are prepared to give you occasional talks, but responsibility to your constituents you cannot carry because we have no responsibility through you to your constituents."
That is an illustration of the working out of inherent contradictions and absurdities of that ill-fated experiment. It is perhaps a good thing that it has come early on in the life of that body.
It will not be remedied or altered if, by any chance, that body should get as far as setting up any Committees. I suppose that it might be possible for officials to respond to Committees set up by the Assembly; but we in this House should be very jealous of any such arrangement. When officials appear before Committees of this House, as indeed they must, they appear on behalf of their Ministers. They appear because those Ministers are responsible to the House and therefore owe an answer to those Committees. Officials who appear before Committees of the Assembly are in no such position. Therefore, those who are responsible as officials to Ministers—Ministers solely accountable "for all aspects of Northern Ireland affairs" to Parliament and to this House—will be placing themselves in communication on behalf of the Government with those in whom no such responsibility vests.
There is no precedent or justification or wisdom in any such arrangement. The only result will be to convey to the Province and to those who have taken part in the Assembly that they have been the subject of an experiment which is essentially in the nature of a trick, a hocus-pocus, giving the appearance of representation without the reality.


During the passage of the Bill we told the Secretary of State that that was what would happen. Indeed, I remember telling him myself that if persons were elected and turned up at Stormont he could not restrict what they would talk about. They will talk about what they please; but they will talk about it irresponsibly, not because they want to do so, but because they have been placed in an inherently irresponsible position. That position could not have been more classically stated than it was by the Secretary of State in the letter to the Members of the Assembly from which I have just quoted.
The impasse is irresolvable unless the Members of the Assembly, who were elected on the basis that they would not conform with the conditions in the Bill for taking over administrative responsibility, break their election pledges to their constituents or unless the Assembly ceases to exist.
I move from that impasse, which is irremediable unless and until that happens, to two particular but very sensitive ways in which the House is at present being affronted by the arrangements for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Those hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies recently received a communication from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. I shall not trouble the House with the full letter which was appended, but perhaps I might read Mr. Kernohan's covering letter. It states:
Under my Act as amended or affected by subsequent legislation the responsibility for submission to me of complaints against Northern Ireland Government Departments is now transferred to Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The second paragraph of the letter continues:
My predecessor wrote to you shortly after your election as a Member of the House of Commons giving information about the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I have now written a letter to all Members of the Assembly giving them similar information and I enclose a copy of it for your information.
If I may say so, this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, concerns the Chair in more than the formal sense in which all matters in this House concern the Chair; for this is an affront to the House as well as to individual Members. I am told by the Secretary of State that on all aspects of Northern Ireland affairs the Government are accountable to me—to the House. Therefore I am responsible to my constituents on all aspects of Northern Ireland affairs that are within the scope of Government. With the exception of the exiguous matters that are within the powers of the district councils, for everything else within the purview of Government that affects my constituents, I am responsible to them. According to the Secretary of State, I alone in Down, South, as the elected representative am responsible.
Whether rightly or wrongly, I am now told by the Parliamentary Commissioner that his services are no longer at my disposal. He kindly said that he would finish a couple of cases that I had submitted to him before 20 October, and I was most obliged to him for that. However, I have received from him not merely that general letter, but an intimation directed to me personally that he would no longer accept—as the Parliamentary Commissioner in Great Britain must accept from hon. Members if their submissions are within his terms of reference—submissions that I make to him, when I judge that the best way to make Government accountable to mé and to secure redress for my constituents to whom I am responsible.
We should be given an explanation. I believe that the Parliamentary Commissioner is legally qualified. I assume he has investigated the effect of the Northern Ireland Act 1982, read in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Act 1973 and the Act under which the Parliamentary Commissioner operates. If so, by legislation the House has deprived those hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies of access to a Parliamentary Commissioner in discharge of responsibilities that are uniquely and exclusively those of Members of Parliament, in order that they can be transferred to persons to whom the Secretary of State says that he is not accountable.
We truncated our proceedings on the Bill. My point illustrates how unwise it is for the House to hurry or botch its business. If the Parliamentary Commissioner has interpreted the statutes rightly, we would not have dreamt of enacting a Bill with that effect, if we had known.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am in a different and even more ludicrous position than my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), because I have been working on two cases with the co-operation of the Minister responsible in Northern Ireland for the Department of the Environment. I was conducting the correspondence as a Member of Parliament. I was then requested to lay the complaints before the Parliamentary Commissioner. However, to do that I must don the hat of a Member of the Assembly and use notepaper headed, not House of Commons, London SW 1, but Northern Ireland Assembly, Parliament Buildings, Stormont. In that way I can lay the complaint before the Parliamentary Commissioner, who is, after all, responsible to this House.

Mr. Powell: I almost regret that I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). During the past 12 years there has rarely, if ever, been any cause for animosity between us; but I am jealous to find that when my hon. Friend—like a few more of my hon. Friends—is confronted by the same problems as myself, he can do what I am apparently prevented from doing by law. I am apparently not allowed to engage the services of the. Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Therefore, either the Parliamentary Commissioner is mistaken about the law—in which case he must be sharply told on behalf of the Government that that is so—or if, as I suspect, we botched our work because we hurried it, we must have the situation rectified, even if that means introducing a Bill.
I hesitate to embark upon the dark waters of inquiring whether an Order in Council would be capable of remedying that defect in primary legislation. I suspect it would not be. However, the Secretary of State cannot possibly justify what he has done. He can only say that the Bill had to be guillotined because the debate on it showed up too many of its weaknesses, and that, because of the guillotine, the defect was not brought to his atttention, but remained unnoticed in the other place and received the Royal Assent.
The Government cannot refuse a remedy for this grievance. They cannot say that they are satisfied, when hon. Members are denied access to a Parliamentary Commissioner on matters on which Ministers are uniquely responsible to them, as Members of Parliament. I hope that that matter will be dealt with, and I am certain that the whole House is with me in my demand.

Mr. Harold McCusker: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Members of the Assembly to whom the power has been transferred do not have any means of getting the Minister responsible to form a judgment? He is not answerable to them. They cannot use the normal parliamentary procedures to make him accountable. That is another aspect of the matter.

Mr. Powell: As my hon. Friend has pointed out, when Members of the Assembly receive their reports from the Parliamentary Commissioner, they do not have the means that we have to bring pressure to bear on the Administration. Indeed, my hon. Friend has reminded me how the absurdities of this constitutional monstrosity pile upon one. They come like birds returning to roost. They are not the birds of those who opposed the legislation, but they are coming home to roost. There are other absurdities—

Mr. John Dunlop: I am inferior to the right hon. Gentleman, in that I am not a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr. Powell: Neither am I.

Mr. Dunlop: We are assembled in what is known as the "High Court of Parliament" although it is thinly attended at present. What am I to do? Will I have to delegate the requests that have been made to me to the Reverend William McCrea, or, better still, to Mr. Danny Morrison, who was elected for my constituency? I am sure that the latter could deal most expeditiously with some of the complaints that apply to the Commissioner. I should like some help from the Government and from Parliament.

Mr. Powell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support, because, like me, he is now a second-class citizen here.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: This is news to me. However, I can see another danger. The Parliamentary Commissioner in Northern Ireland will certainly demand an increase, because he will have to cope with 78 men, instead of 12.

Mr. Powell: I was reminded of an additional, incremental absurdity by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). In each of the constituencies, corresponding to the parliamentary constituencies there are anything between four and 10 members of the Assembly. Any constituent of any hon. Member has therefore not only a choice of either/or, but a cumulative choice of between four and 10 people to approach if he wishes to engage the services of the Parliamentary Commissioner.
One of the beauties is that a Member of the Assembly will not know that another Member of the Assembly has been approached, and the Member of Parliament will not know—unless he is also the Member of the Assembly. Wherever one looks there is nonsense; for it is a characteristic of good clotted nonsense that the longer one examines it, the more nonsense appears. Nonsense generates nonsense and the absurdity that the House committed in passing the 1982 Act will continue to generate nonsense for as long as it exists.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: Would the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) care to speculate on how long this ridiculous nonsense will continue?

Mr. Powell: That is a matter for prayer rather than speculation, but I hope that the price already being paid for it by people in the Province will not mount indefinitely. There is another matter which is remediable and should be remedied whereby the House, its Members and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as its representatives, are affronted by the proceedings instituted by the Government in relation to the Assembly. The Government have told Members of the Assembly that Ministers stand ready to receive from them representations on behalf of individual constituents. This matter just managed to be debated before the guillotine fell and some of its consequences were ventilated during the debate; but they were brushed aside by the Government.
Let us examine what can happen when a constituent of mine learns that the Secretary of State has enjoined on his Ministers to keep an ever-ready and attentive ear to the plaints of constituents forwarded to him by Members of the Assembly. Let us suppose that my constituent takes a problem that is within the sphere of the Government to an Assembly Member. What happens? Does the Minister address his mind to the case, as I would expect had I put it before him? Does the Minister reconsider his decision and arrive at the same conclusion, unsatisfactory though it was to my constituent?
If that happens, what will my constituent do? He will write to me. He is not likely to mention the fact that he has pursued the case through the Member of the Assembly, unless the Member happens to be one of my hon. Friends, who, obeying the convention of the House, would have passed the case to me, as they do invariably and I to them—[Interruption.]—particularly between my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh and myself, owing to certain geographical peculiarities in that area.
The constituent has a perfect right to turn to me. Having examined the Secretary of State's letter, he says, "Ministers are accountable to you for all aspects of Northern Ireland affairs. As your constituent, therefore, I ask you to take up my case and obtain for me what I consider to be fair treatment and justice."
If I then approach the Minister, as I do today, what is his position? Does he clear from his mind all that passed between him and the Assembly Member and begin to consider the problem de novo, as he would if the first submission had come from me? That is not human nature. It is impossible, with the best will in the world—I attribute that best will to all the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office who sit in the House—for a Minister to deal with a case put to him by an hon. Member conscientiously, properly and with an open mind if he has already dealt with it when a Member of the Assembly has approached him, as they are instructed they may do on behalf of what are called their constituents.
My constituent has lost out. He has not had the benefit of my being able to put before the Minister the considerations that appear to me to be relevant to his case. The matter has been a res judicata for the Minister by the time that it comes to me. My constituent has thus been deceived. He has been told that he can obtain a remedy through the Assembly Member; but, when he rightly comes afterwards to me as his Member of Parliament and says, "I have not had justice and I want it from you", l cannot open the case and discuss it de novo with the Minister without the Minister's judgment upon the subject being pre-empted. It is intolerable that those to whom


Ministers are not responsible should be permitted, let alone encouraged, to be a channel for grievances to be submitted to Ministers responsible to the House.
Of course, from time to time Ministers do correspond with members of the public. My constituent has the right to write directly to a Minister: he need not not seek my services. I am also aware that Northern Ireland Ministers correspond, sometimes on individual matters, with elected members of district councils. In that case there is no misapprehension about where the responsibility lies. If my constituent goes to a district councillor, who then writes to the Minister, there is no dubiety about the limits between the responsibilities of the district councillor and my responsibilities as a member of the House. I am sure that in such cases, however many members of the public have approached the Minister, I shall obtain the fair and unprejudiced hearing that I have come to expect.
There is no precedent for this intolerable position, which has been created deliberately by the Secretary of State in order, to use his expression, "to make the Assembly work"—in order to keep his charade going and to recruit good will and support for his charade.
Two days ago the Belfast Newsletter carried a letter, not from one of my constituents, but from a constituent of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), which is perhaps poetic justice. The gentleman had approached the Minister through an Assembly Member for Down, North. The Minister wrote to him saying that he had started an investigation and would discuss its outcome with that Assembly Member. What is the position of a Member of Parliament when such a transaction takes place between a Minister and a person without responsibility, to whom the Minister has no responsibility? It is an intolerable position for the House and a contradiction of the constitutional relationship between the Government and the House of Commons.
However, this matter can be put right, for there is no obligation upon Ministers to play this game with Members of the Assembly. They are not merely within their rights, but they have a constitutional duty, to say to an Assembly Member "This complaint should come to us through the Member of Parliament for the constituency", if there is a Member of Parliament and if he is functioning. Of course, if there is no such Member of Parliament, the constituent has no remedy.
I believe I shall have the support of the House when I ask the Government to ensure that this matter is dealt with and that the rights of constituents and, therefore, of Members of Parliament vis-a-vis the Government, as they exist in the rest of the United Kingdom, are preserved in Northern Ireland.
I now propose to adjourn further consideration of the Assembly, its causes, its iniquities and its consequences until 9.30 tomorrow morning.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Ministers of the Crown who serve in the Northern Ireland Office always treat this House with great consideration except when, on brief occasions, they become over-excited. I should like at once to acknowledge the courtesy of Ministers who write to us in advance of such debates asking what matters we intend to raise, so that more useful replies can be prepared.
I informed the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), that I proposed to refer, subject to the ruling of the Chair, first, to the administration of car parks in the Province and, secondly, to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the expenses of which loom large in this Appropriation.
Before proceeding to either topic, may I say something to show that not all is blood and gloom in Northern Ireland? First—I say "first" because agriculture comes first in Ulster—it was good to hear from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who opened the debate that farmers' incomes have improved when compared with the previous year.
With regard to Class II, Vote 6, expenditure by the Department of Economic Development, the House may wish to convey to the Industrial Development Board, now in business, its good wishes for the important work ahead. I understand that the Industrial Development Board is working out a detailed scheme for encouraging investment from outside the Province, as well as reviving industry already there. In November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State went to the United States. I hope that their efforts there will bear fruit in due season and that they will keep us informed.
The local enterprise development unit, which has survived the concentration of Government agencies in this area, has promoted more than a thousand jobs in the current financial year. That is not a negligible number. It looks forward to achieving 1,900 jobs in the next financial year.
Energy costs are a central factor in the economic progress of the Province. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), who opened the debate for the Opposition, referred to the lignite reserves near Lough Neagh. We saw some reference to it in the press, but then the whole matter disappeared. It is an important issue. I should be grateful if we could hear more about it because if more energy can be provided from the Province it will be possible to reduce industrial costs. Energy was discussed yesterday in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister of State was present. The issue of North Sea versus Kinsale was discussed.
I shall refer later in my speech to the relationship between the House and the Assembly, which was discussed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It is an important matter. My hon. Friend the Minister of State addressed the Assembly before he addressed the House. I mention this not to complain about the conduct of my hon. Friend, but to mention it as an example of the difficulties that have already arisen, and will arise, between Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): A question about Kinsale gas was on the Order Paper at the most recent Northern Ireland Question Time. The question was not reached, but a full answer was given in response to a question from one of my hon. Friends.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, but he will appreciate that that may not always be the case. This difficulty will present itself again and again.
In Committee on the Northern Ireland Bill, on 8 June 1982, I referred to functions which I thought might well


be discharged by local authorities in Northern Ireland. I mentioned the planning powers which are now exercised by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell). I referred in that speech to the management of Northern Ireland's excellent road system by the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, for which my hon. Friend is responsible. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten) mentioned the MI and the M2. This may be considered a trivial point, but I have sometimes wondered why, as we are one United Kingdom, and as the numbering of motorways throughout Great Britain is consecutive, we have to start with MI and M2 when we cross that narrow strip of water into Northern Ireland. I should be grateful for an answer.
Under Class IV, Vote 1, there is a revised provision of £2,180,000 for new construction and improvement of parking facilities. I should like to ask about the policy governing that increase. During the Second Reading debate on the Northern Ireland Bill on 8 June I said:
One might have thought that even in Northern Ireland local authorities would be allowed to deal with car parks."—[Official Report, 8 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 43.]
That is not a criticism of any one party because there is a long history of this matter. In that speech I criticised in a most friendly manner my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) who was a Minister at the Northern Ireland Office when I engaged in correspondence. I engaged in correspondence with Ministers before him about who should run car parks in Northern Ireland. Last June I received a letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Basingstoke—now in charge of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment—in which he discussed my suggestion that car parks might, if not privatised—that would be a terrible suggestion—be transferred to district councils. My hon. Friend wrote:
My officials advise me that a couple of years ago, at the instigation of my predecessor"—
I think that I had something to do with that—
a study was carried out to determine the feasibility of asking district councils to operate car parks. It was concluded then that this would not be a viable proposition.
I wonder why. Are there military considerations? Perhaps it might be necessary at some moment of even graver emergency than that which obtains at present for car parks to be taken over by the Armed Forces and therefore it might be better if they are in the hands of Government of Northern Ireland rather than under a Republican district council. I should accept that. If there are convincing considerations, I should be glad to hear them.

Mr. Molyneaux: Has this confusion arisen because certain local authorities both here and in our part of Ireland have declared themselves nuclear-free zones? Might that have some connection?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: There might be some sectarian considerations. That is always in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he considers the dangers of entrusting district councils with powers.
When we consider whether district councils or local authorities are fit to be entrusted with powers in the United Kingdom, one has only to look across the river to wonder whether powers should be entrusted to local authorities in Great Britain. I must not be diverted.
I shall proceed with the letter from my hon. Friend. Having told me that it would not be a viable proposition to transfer the car parks to district councils, he created a diversion. He wrote:
However, with my encouragement the Department is at present considering bids from private developers for the construction and operation of a multi-storey car park (with ancillary commercial facilities) in the centre of Belfast and also seeking bids for a second site. My intention is that the Government should be relieved of the costs of provision and should secure worthwhile remuneration from a long lease but for the present retain a measure of control over charging, in view of its current traffic management responsibilities.
My hon. Friend concluded;
I have recently put in hand a review of the conclusion reached in Philip's time"—
"Philip" is my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), then an Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—
as to the feasibility of transferring car parking to District Councils and I am further instituting an examination of the pros and cons of transferring traffic management to District Councils.
I hope that we shall be given a date for the publication of the results of that review.
Thursday night is "Yes Minister" night and that may explain the rather thin attendance in the Chamber. The series might remove to Northern Ireland to dramatise the tenacious defence of these outposts of the empire of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment.
The estimated annual running cost of the Northern Ireland Assembly is currently £2,680,000, including £760,000 for the salaries and allowances of the Officers of the Assembly and £1,115,000 for the salaries and allowances of Assembly Members, these figures being calculated on the basis that all Members take their seats.
I think that I should be out of order if I gave notice of moving the enlargement of the emoluments of the occupants of the Chair in this House, but something might be needed to keep them slightly above the level of the emoluments of the occupants of the Chair in Northern Ireland. I have the greatest respect—I count him as a friend—for the Presiding Officer. I think that that is the correct term, although he has become the Speaker. The right hon. Member for Down, South called him the President. He is really the Presiding Officer but he calls himself the Speaker. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) is a bit of a poacher turned gamekeeper.
I shall quote what the self-styled Speaker of the Assembly said about the Assembly over which he presides with such dignity and enthusiasm. During the debate on the White Paper, which underlay the legislation which brought the Assembly into being, he said:
The only argument advanced by any Ulster politician in favour of the White Paper is that it will give the Ulster people the opportunity to express their opinion in an election. We have had election after election in Northern Ireland. We even had a constitutional Assembly that sent its majority report to this House. What did the House do with it? It threw it out. What, therefore, is the point of another election and another Assembly if all it does is to add to the bitterness already in the Province, leading to greater division at a time when the Ulster people need some hope of coming together and of seeing an end to the violence that is gnawing at their vitals?
The hon. Gentleman might have added "and at a time when the Ulster people should be concentrating on some of the economic and social problems", about which the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) spoke so eloquently.
The self-styled Mr. Speaker added:


Despite the unsatisfactory situation of unbridled bureaucracy in the government of the Province, I believe that the White Paper proposals would only create a worse state of affairs … the proposed Assembly will not create the conditions of confidence essential to economic recovery. Most important of all, the Assembly will not make any contribution to the defeat of terrorism.

Mr. McCusker: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that even he might be tempted for an extra £25,000 a year to overcome some of the reservations that he was expressing in April?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I never define my response to temptation until it arrives. Everyone knows that no one wishes to be a Speaker and that the person who becomes Speaker is dragged to the Chair. No cardinal wishes to be a Pope. I believe that there was a Pope—was it a Borgia?—who said "We have the papacy, let us enjoy it". I dare say that my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North, who is not in his place, takes the view "We have the Chair, let us enjoy it".
In the same speech the self-styled Mr. Speaker said:
Even the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) found no virtue in the proposals except that he saw the Assembly as a place where, day in and day out, there would be opportunities to give expression to Ulster anger."—[Official Report, 28 April 1982; Vol. 22, c. 908–9.]
It is deplorable that the representatives of the Democratic Unionist Party are absent from this debate. It is one of the most important Northern Ireland debates that we have. This brings home the difficulties that will arise from the Assembly. There are Members of the Assembly who are Members of this place. They are trying to serve two masters. I submit that the first duty of a Member of Parliament is to the House of Commons and that the representatives of the Democratic Unionist Party should be present, especially as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)
found no virtue in the proposals except that he saw the Assembly as a place where, day in and day out, there would be opportunities to give expression to Ulster anger.
The other Member of the Democratic Unionist Party, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), said on 15 June:
The Assembly would certainly have the initial functions … but it would never under the terms enunciated by the Secretary of State get full devolved powers and executive functions.
I have disagreed many times with the hon. Members for Belfast, East and for Antrim, North. However, the hon. Member for Belfast, East went on to say something which I think is wise. He added:
Some of us have always argued that district councils should have additional powers only provided it was consistent with having a devolved Government and Parliament in Northern Ireland. But if under the Bill, as intimated by the Secretary of State in his intervention, the Assembly can have only the initial functions of a scrutinising, consultative or deliberative role, some hon. Members might say that it would be better for local government immediately to have additional powers because on the present basis additional powers will not come to the Assembly."—[Official Report, 15 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 775–77.]
Those are wise words.
The right hon. Member for Down, South drew attention to the difficulties, the delicacy and the infelicities of the relations between this House and the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Committees of the House, notably the Northern Ireland Committee and the Assembly. I was

shocked—I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends were too—to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about the Parliamentary Commissioner. It came as a particular blow to us, because we have not been favoured by a sight of the communication. As I listened to the right hon. Gentleman I wondered whether the announcement by the Parliamentary Commissioner to Members of the Assembly was consonant with the legislation that set him up. I hope that we shall have a clear answer to that when the Minister replies to the debate.
Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends were deeply concerned when such important statements about the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the RUC Reserve and the financing were made first to the Northern Ireland Assembly and not to this House. We have resolved the difficulty about the other place. Statements are made simultaneously in both places, but no statement was made in the House of Commons on that subject.
It is clear that the relations between Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have not been properly thought out and worked out. As the Northern Ireland Assembly stands at present, it is a constitutional monstrosity, with an increasing potential to oust the position of this House and its Ulster Members in relation to the Province.

Rev. Martin Smyth: As a comparative newcomer to the House, I again appreciate the opportunity to speak. On other occasions when I have spoken, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have treated me with gentleness. Having now experienced a robust speaker, I deeply appreciate your kindness.
Some hon. Members have spoken about the irresponsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but it has at least acted in a responsible manner in relation to Class XI, Vote 1 which allocates finance for the Assembly. This House has legislated that Assembly Members who do not attend can draw their back salaries as long as they sign on sooner or later.
With cross-community and all-party support in the Assembly, the view was expressed that, as in this Parliament, any back pay should be limited to six months. Therefore, when considering the appropriation of finance, the House should also consider amending the Act under which the Assembly works.
The Minister referred to the care that the nation has for Northern Ireland. As part of that nation, Northern Ireland likewise cares for the rest of the nation. We take exception to those who use figures to imply that Northern Ireland is being treated in a financially different way from the rest of the nation. I underscore that fact. We have shared in the nation's sorrow and poverty. We believe we should share in the nation's joy and riches. It is in that context that we are debating the order.
I was sorry that the Minister was unable to be present on Monday night during the debate on health inequalities, otherwise he would have heard me speak in similar terms to the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) about Gingerbread and the concern of that section of the Ulster community. I trust that the Minister, who is concerned with this aspect of policy in Northern Ireland, will read that debate, listen to what the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North said tonight and give us a helpful answer.
We are told that the increase in supplementary benefit in Class X, Vote 2 is because of the number of


unemployed. The Minister is aware of the concern in Northern Ireland—I dare say in other parts of the United Kingdom, too—about the way the Act is being enforced. I know of a person aged 19 who for the last two years has been seeking to improve his job opportunities in a world where there are few of them by going into part-time education rather than hanging around corners, knocking in windows or joining mobs of vandals. Not only has he been unable to benefit during the past two years because of the strict interpretation of the Act, but he has been unable to benefit this year either. The anomaly is that, had he done nothing for three months, he would have fulfilled the terms of the Act and would have been entitled to draw supplementary benefit.
In debating this matter, we must look, not only at the amount of money allocated, but at the undoubted anomalies, especially those involving young people who are prepared to try to do something purposeful in their leisure time. It seems that the State continues to finance idleness rather than support those who are acting in a positive manner.
I am happy to hear that steps have been taken to reduce the number of civil servants by drafting them into other employment. During July, August and September, especially in my constituency, pressure is placed upon social security offices. In a nation where it is recognised that there are insufficient job opportunities, would it not be wiser to consider paying full-time students on a quarterly basis rather than their signing on, as many of them do, thereby cluttering up the social security offices? I suspect that considerable savings may be made by the implementation of such a system.
As to Class 2, Vote 6, I pay tribute to the work that has been done. I disagree with the simplistic position put forward by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North, who spoke of the need to link the two economies. He spoke of consent, but the consent of the people of Northern Ireland has been regularly ignored, because they have consented by democratic process to be within the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman and his friends across the river seek to shunt us out of the United Kingdom into the Republic of Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman would do it by fair means whereas others would do it by foul means.
There is a strong case for tying the economy of Northern Ireland to that of Great Britain. In that context we pay tribute to those who seek to attract new investment, quite often under great handicaps. Perhaps we shall be able to debate that later this evening. Alternatively, perhaps the Minister will assure us that this point is already covered and does not need to be included in the Supplementary Estimates.
Greater attention should be paid to marketing. A new approach to world-wide marketing must be co-ordinated for smaller Northern Ireland firms so that they can sell their goods abroad rather than manufacture for the home market. I would have been happier had there been a reference in the order to marketing, to which more attention should be given.
Some Northern Ireland officials charged with the promotion of new industrial development would do well not to look over their shoulders at the spectre of De Lorean and think that everyone is out to extort money from the Government. Some people might be genuine and should not be grilled in any interrogations.
Industrialists who seek investment opportunities in Northern Ireland often arrive at Aldergrove airport and must depend on a taxi to take them to Stormont or elsewhere. Usually the civil servants are aware of their arrival, and they should put out the welcoming mat and seek to make strangers from abroad welcome. Perhaps the Minister will examine this matter and try to improve the situation.
Class IV, Vote 1 increases finance for the Department of the Environment, especially:
on roads and certain associated services including lighting".
I welcome the recent announcements of new road works and the completion of schemes that were put on a long finger as a result of the cutbacks in 1980. Housing is particularly affected by the delay in the commencement of these new road schemes, and I am happy that they will now be going ahead.
I have already paid tribute in the House to the industry and concern of the Minister responsible for environment matters in Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), who has cared for the people of Northern Ireland in exemplary fashion. However, I should like the Department to examine in greater depth the co-ordination of roads and lighting services with the housing programme.
The Minister today spoke about the housing and road needs of west Belfast. I am not entirely a city man, and I appreciate the needs of the rest of the Province, but it would be wrong to think that the need for roads, housing and lighting is confined to west Belfast. Areas of north Belfast, east Belfast and south Belfast are also in great need. One of the tragedies is that, although new housing development is taking place, no lighting is provided. As a result, old-age pensioners must find their way home in total darkness. There seems to be confusion among the Departments responsible for these services.
I have become increasingly convinced that the removal of that responsibility from the Northern Ireland electricity service to the Department of the Environment has hampered rather than improved the situation.
We must ensure that these finances are used purposefully and for the good of the community as a whole.

Mr. Julian Amery: We had protracted if truncated discussions about the situation in Northern Ireland during the passage of the Northern Ireland Act 1982, but this is the first occasion since then on which the House has been able to debate the situation in Northern Ireland in any way.
I appreciate that other engagements may have kept the Secretary of State away from the Chamber—perhaps he will arrive later for the debate on security—but I intervene now in the hope that he will be present tomorrow. We have not yet heard from him about how he sees the situation, both since the elections and since we debated these matters in July.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to the constitutional difficulties that are already bristling around the Assembly about the shape that it is taking. Last Tuesday, the Secretary of State made a statement on security to the Assembly, but no parallel statement was made here.
Today, the Minister talked about the valuable contacts that Ministers were developing with the Assembly. I


understand the desire of those who wish to see devolved government in the Province—I am not among them—to use the Assembly as a sounding board, but until powers are devolved it must be made absolutely clear that ministerial responsibility is to this House. It is the elected United Kingdom representatives who enjoy authority and responsibility to whom they are accountable. Therefore, while I would be the last to criticise the Government for taking the opportunity to sound opinion in the Assembly, that should never be done at the expense of taking the opinion of the House of Commons.
Any statements made in Northern Ireland should have a parallel statement in this House, just as we do in our relations with the other place. After all, the other place still enjoys a certain amount of responsibility and authority, whereas as yet the Northern Ireland Assembly has no responsibility of any kind. It is unacceptable that it should be in a more privileged position than Members of this House, because it is to this House and its Northern Ireland committees that Ministers are accountable and responsible. We shall need a clear statement on this subject tomorrow.

Mr. Molyneaux: The right hon. Gentleman may understand the extent of the difficulty if I tell him that that was the only positive point in the right hon. Gentleman's speech when he went to the Assembly in a vain attempt to defend the Government's security policy. Had it not been for that opportunity—which was forced upon him—he would in all probability have made that statement in the debate on the emergency provisions order.

Mr. Amery: That is an extremely valid point. We have had experience of consultative assemblies in the past. The consultative assembly of the Council of Europe was a sounding board, but its members were not elected. They were delegations from different parliaments.
I remember when I was Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when we still had a Colonial Office, there was some purely consultative legislatures but they consulted only on matters over which the governor had full power. Therefore, what they discussed would not have been brought in the ordinary way before the House of Commons.
Here, we are in danger of arriving at a duplication of responsibility between this House which is still, in its totality, responsible for everything that happens in Northern Ireland, except for district councils, and the Assembly, which has no responsibility of any sort. We must get the matter cleared up as soon as possible. We must insist that the Assembly in Belfast is not treated as though it were already what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would like it to be at the expense of what is the reality today. It is this House, with the Northern Ireland Members in it, which has responsibility.
I do not wish to go back over the debate about the Assembly that we had in the summer, but it is no good saying that the past is past. Unless one understands the past, one is unlikely to understand the future. It remains a fact that my right hon. Friend embarked on the Assembly and pushed it through the House with the help of a guillotine motion although there was no substantial body of support for it in Belfast, or Dublin, or, in any positive sense, in the Conservative Party. I rather doubt that there

was full support for it in the Cabinet. There was tolerance for it from the Opposition but only because they have been moving increasingly towards support for a united Ireland.
It is early days yet but it seems to me that the Assembly is a still-born child. It still appears to have no support but there is a risk that I am sure my right hon. Friend will have in mind. If one calls an assembly into being and it is fairly elected and represents the majority of opinion in the Province, it will not be all that easy to say no to it if it makes demands that are inconsistent with opinion in this House. That could be the prelude to the type of constitutional conflict that we experienced in the 17th century.
We shall also find that the Assembly will complicate our relations with the Republic. We all want the closest of relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic but we shall not get them in the context of devolution. If the door was firmly closed on devolution, the matter would be between Dublin and London. There could be a parliamentary tier in which this House, including its Northern Ireland Members, would be represented. But the moment one tries to extend that to a devolved assembly—if it ever became a responsible body or if the Government were ever foolish enough to try to draw it into an Irish dimensional debate before it had responsibility—one is opening the door to giving Dublin power sharing with Britain in Belfast. That would be unacceptable to the Province, unacceptable here and most certainly unacceptable to the Conservative Party.
The risk—I do not know whether the Government want to do this but it could well be the result of what they are doing—is that the Government will institutionalise power sharing in Belfast between Dublin and London. We cannot accept that.
The Assembly is still-born. How long is the dead foetus to lie about on the table? I quite understand that it would be extremely awkward for the Government to admit to failure at this stage. It is conceivable that they have not yet completely failed in their purpose although it is clear to most of us that they have. Some of us who are their friends and support them on the broad measures upon which they are embarked want to help them to get off the hook. We want to get them out of the embarrassing, awkward and painful situation into which they have got themselves. I am sure that they went into it with good intentions, but we must face the fact that, even if we cannot admit it today, we have got close to the state when we can say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's Irish policy is in ruins.
The Government do not have much choice. They could convert the Assembly into a top tier of local government. I understand that my right hon. Friend is not prepared to consider that. In my judgment, it is the wisest and most constructive way in which the matter can be approached. They could revert to direct rule—not today or tomorrow, but they could lay down a time when they will do so. That would give the other potential members of the Assembly a deadline by which they must either draw in and take part, or by which time the whole thing must be wound up. I do not know when that time will be but if we go on for more than three months with this dead corpse on the table, it will go rotten and create far worse circumstances in the Province than have existed hitherto.
My views will not be altogether surprising to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I have spoken this evening in the hope that my right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State will make it his business tomorrow to come to the House and make a full statement on an extremely serious situation, not only in this debate but in our next debate this evening on security.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: The most important part of this little appropriation order should be Class II, Vote 6, which relates to expenditure by the Department of Economic Development. I am sure that every hon. Member who represents a Northern Ireland constituency would be able to delay the House for many hours by recounting what is happening in his constituency with regard to the appalling number of unemployed.
I listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). He feels as despairing as I do. However one juggles them, the statistics show that about 130,000 people are now unemployed in Northern Ireland. The true number is much higher than that. The level of poverty in Northern Ireland far exceeds that of any other part of the United Kingdom. My constituency is more poverty-stricken and socially underprivileged than any other in Western Europe. I think that the Minister would agree.
As representatives, we come here—I do—not simply to tell the Minister how bad the unemployment figures are. He is only too well aware of them. He has seen them for himself. We come here to ask him whether there is any light at the end of the tunnel. Does he see any prospects for attacking the intolerable level of unemployment?
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. M. Smyth) was inclined to exonerate Ministers and to suggest that, as there is unemployment in other parts of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, as a loyal part of the kingdom, should accept that, too. There may be some truth in that from the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but whatever the unemployment figures in any other part of the United Kingdom, they do not remotely approach those with which we have to live in Northern Ireland. Unemployment there is the highest that it has been since the creation of Northern Ireland, and I cannot see the Minister bringing forward any proposals that will alleviate it.
We have read and heard from the Dispatch Box reports of a succession of Ministers in both Labour and Conservative Governments visiting the United States in the hope of attracting American investment. I cannot see any investment coming from the United States to Northern Ireland.
Earlier this week I had a long discussion with officials of the American consulate in Belfast. In answer to specific questions, they stated clearly that they could not undertake to attract investment to Northern Ireland in the foreseeable future. I know that Ministers are well intentioned and that they have tried hard during their visits to the United States, but in view of the world-wide recession and especially of the troubles in Northern Ireland it is understandable that no outside investor is anxious to set up any industrial project in Northern Ireland.
In the absence of outside investment, the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) was right to say that it must be the responsibility of the Government to try to create employment, and to create State employment if there is no possibility of private employment.
One could spend a great deal of time describing the enormity of the problem, but that is unnecessary, as the

Minister is well aware of it. I hope that before the end of the debate he will be able to produce a little ray of hope in the all-pervading darkness of the Northern Ireland economy.
I reinforce the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast, South about housing, roads and lighting developments in west Belfast, but he was wrong in suggesting that my constituency should not be thought of as worse than any other. It is indeed worse than any other constituency in Northern Ireland. Certainly, in north, east and south Belfast the problem is not of the same magnitude as it is in west Belfast. The Minister has recently received deputations about the appalling housing conditions on some estates that were built in the past 20 years but are now almost literally falling apart. As a representative of that area, I must appeal to the Minister almost to disregard the other constituencies, such is the state of housing in my area.
The war that began during the proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill seems to be continuing. In refusing to accept the existence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Right-wing Tory Members find themselves with very strange allies. The Provisional Sinn Fein, about which the same hon. Members were arguing yesterday, finds itself in the same bed as the Right wing of the Conservative Party in attempting to bring the Assembly to an end.
I am less pessimistic. I believe that the Assembly should be given a chance. I do not think that its success can be guaranteed, but nor do I believe that it can be brought to an end in three months. I am sure that 59 elected Members, all in receipt of salaries, will not readily acquiesce to the ending of the Assembly. I am fully convinced that the Assembly will last until the end of this Parliament. Indeed, I hope that it will continue after the election of a new Parliament here, because I believe that only within the confines of Northern Ireland political structures can the two communities try to get to know each other, and that is the only way towards peace in Northern Ireland.
I have experience of the old Stormont Parliament, the Assembly and the power-sharing Executive. I am utterly convinced that the first five months of 1974, when there was a power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland comprising the Unionist Party, the Alliance Party and the SDLP, saw the most helpful political development since the creation of Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, it ended after only five months. Nevertheless, from the contacts that I made then, when I was Deputy Chief Executive, I believe that the majority of the population in Northern Ireland would have accepted—albeit reluctantly and with great suspicion—the concept and principles of power sharing, but they were frightened by the Council of Ireland proposals.
I believe that the suspicion that the Council of Ireland proposals attracted was the beginning of the end of the power-sharing Executive. If, by whatever means—whether through Committee chairmanships or through an Executive—a power-sharing Assembly with cross-community support can be created and allowed to continue for whatever period of months or years may be appropriate, the people involved will begin to work together.
Northern Ireland is a small place with only 1½ million people. All the representatives will face the same problems of bad housing and unemployment in their constituencies. Once they begin to work together to alleviate some of


those evils, they will build up confidence in themselves. One may then begin to consider Council of Ireland proposals. First, however, trust must be built up within the Northern Ireland community so that we may attack the real, everyday problems that so urgently need to be dealt with on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland.
The House will recall that I was the only hon. Member from a Northern Ireland constituency who voted for the legislation setting up the Assembly. I did so for the reasons that I have given. I believe that there must be a Northern Ireland political forum. Until I heard the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) today, however, I was entirely unaware that Members of the House of Commons would be denied powers that they previously had, such as the power to approach the parliamentary commissioner or Ombudsman, because those powers would go to the Assembly Members. I do not know whether consideration of that part of the measure was truncated by the guillotine, but I certainly did not know that. Had I been aware of it, I should have opposed vehemently any diminution of the powers of Members of this House.
In Northern Ireland, and especially in west Belfast, it would be possible to have a constituency with four representatives, none of whom attended the Assembly. In west Belfast now, two of the four representatives—one from Sinn Fein and one from the SDLP—have said that they will not go to the Assembly. Whether we like it or not, there are people in Northern Ireland who do not like to meet political opponents from a party against which they have voted all their lives. To put it crudely, and I hesitate to be sectarian in this respect, it is part and parcel of the history of Northern Ireland.
I am certain that in west Belfast there are Catholics who would go to the Sinn Fein or SDLP Assemblyman if they were attending the Assembly. However, in the absence of such a representative, the Catholics will not go to the Unionist or Alliance man. That is not an attack on the Alliance Party, for which I have respect, but it is part of Northern Ireland's history that one does not go for help to a political opponent or someone for whom one has not voted.
There is a theoretical possibility that there may be a constituency where all the representatives are not attending the Assembly. To whom then does the aggrieved constituent go? I wonder what the legislation would be? For example, we have been told that the powers taken away from the elected representative of the House are given to the Assemblyman. If the Assemblyman is not attending is he at liberty to take the case given to him by an aggrieved constituent, and would the parliamentary commissioner accept it from that man? Does his attendance or non-attendance of the Assembly enter into this, or does he have to be signed on as an Assembly Member before the parliamentary commissioner can receive his complaints?
I know that the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Department are talking to Assemblymen who have not yet signed the register or the roll, and are not attending the Assembly, but this should be clarified. This is not a question of a Member of Parliament trying to feel superior to an Assembly Member. I should feel badly done by if, at this late stage in my parliamentary career, after seventeen years as a Member—there may be other hon.

Members who have been here longer—I were to receive a complaint from one of my constituents and forward it to the Minister to be told that it had to be referred back to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government and the Minister should find a means around this problem.
There are those, and I am one of them, who wish every success to the Assembly. I do not want it to end, but it is not right that after so many years we should be denied the right to put our case before the parliamentary commissioner.

Mr. John Patten: Notwithstanding everything that the hon. Gentleman has said about relations with the Assembly and the constitutional issues that have been discussed today, does the hon. Member not recognise that already for a long time under direct rule, the proprieties of the exact constitutional relationship between an individual constituency Member of Parliament and a Ministry have been broken? All around the Province, for sectarian reasons, people do not choose to approach their own Member of Parliament, but write to another. I regularly receive letters which even I, with my imperfect knowledge of the geography of Northern Ireland, recognise as not being in the relevant Member's constituency—for example that of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) or Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). However, in order that a democratically elected Government is seen to work in the Province, we have to breach the conventions that govern the rest of the country on this side of the water.

Mr. Fitt: The Minister reinforces my argument. He will be aware of some cases that I have forwarded to him over many years of people who live miles from my constituency, in Fermanagh, Tyrone and even North Antrim. To put it crudely again, there are Catholics who would not under any circumstances go to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). That is not a reflection on the hon. Gentleman because I understand that if an approach were made to him, he would represent his constituent. However, it is a fact of life in Northern Ireland.
However, although we have had to breach all parliamentary conventions, this is a most serious breach. It is unique when powers of representation that we had as Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland are suddenly taken away. I think that the Minister, on reflection, will realise that that is not right and proper.
I wish to ask the Minister a question in the absence of some other hon. Members whom I should have thought would be here to ask it for themselves. We have read about this matter in the Sunday newspapers, such as The Sunday Times, and again in our local newspapers during the week. Can the Minister give me any information regarding the state of play of the inquiry into the Kincora affair? There are many disquiting rumours in Belfast, which have been reported in the press, that the police inquiries have ended, the DPP has the papers and the Government are sitting back.
I remember that in the early part of this year, when the controversy in the Kincora affair arose, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gave an undertaking that as soon as the police had completed their inquiries there would be a major inquiry into the whole affair. During the course of that debate I asked which people would be allowed or


forced to attend to give evidence. It is some months now since the whole affair was brought before the House, but it remains in Northern Ireland and it will not go away.
It appears—some people are referring to it in this way—that there is some conflict between the security forces, the Army and the police, and some competition between them, with names mentioned as having been involved. There is still a great deal of uncertainty about the inquiry, and I should like it to be held as quickly as possible.

Mr. John Patten: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that speed is of the essence because there is so much uncertainty and loose talk in the Province. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stated on 29 November this year that the investigations into the Kincora affair "are nearing completion." The results have not been received, but when they are,
the decision of the DPP for Northern Ireland as to whether any further charges are to be made must be awaited before we can come to the House with any proposals for an independent judicial inquiry."—[Official Report, 29 November 1982; Vol. 19, c. 65.]
In other words the report has to be received and forwarded to the DPP, who has to decide whether charges are to be made. Those must be disposed of before my right hon. Friend can come to the House with propositions for a judicial inquiry.

Mr. Fitt: The Minister has said, and I think that he understands, that there is still some urgency about the affair. It would appear from press reports that the investigations that have been carried out by the police have been completed and await the verdict of the DPP. I hope that the Minister will draw the remarks made in the debate to the attention of the DPP in the hope that he will come to a quick conclusion.

Mr. John Patten: While the report being prepared by Sir George Terry, the chief constable of the Sussex constabulary, is awaited, the RUC is, quite properly and in parallel to the preparation of the report, conducting its own investigation into certain allegations against certain persons. These allegations may be sent to the DPP for Northern Ireland.
Secondly, parallel to these criminal investigations, a thorough and searching investigation was conducted by officials seconded to Northern Ireland by the DHSS in London. This was conducted into the affairs of children's homes in the Province, and that report has been made public and has received a broad and wide welcome. The general public and the parents and relatives of children in care, all other things being equal, should have nothing to fear following the publication of the report.

Mr. Fitt: I have read the report into the welfare and the conditions in the homes, and that has been an impartial and well conducted report that can only bring good to the welfare homes.
An inquest was held this week into the death of Mr. McKeague during which someone speaking on behalf of the relatives drew the coroner's attention to the fact that a report had appeared in The Sunday Times last week in which Mr. McKeague's name had been mentioned. The coroner adjourned the inquest until further inquiries had been made into the Kincora affair. Those two matters overlap, and there is a great deal of misquiet about them

in Northern Ireland. It would be in the interests of the House and the Northern Ireland community if the matter were brought to an end.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks about the Kincora home, but concentrate on unemployment, which he mentioned earlier in his speech.
I shall keep my comments within Class 2 and Class 10 of the Appropriations. During the passage of the Northern Ireland Bill 1982 through the House last summer a great deal of emphasis was placed on the belief that if there were a new political initiative in the Province it would bring stability, which would enhance possibilities for the economy and investment.
I was never convinced that that argument was as valid as it sounded. I am still not sure that terrorism is the reason why investment is slow in coming to the Province or that the new Assembly will create the political stability that will persuade investors to think differently about Northern Ireland.
That view was reinforced in a speech during the summer by Mr. John Simpson, a lecturer at Queen's university, whom the Belfast Telegraph described as a leading economist. He told the CBI conference in Belfast that he could find no evidence that the troubles had been a major factor in the closure of existing businesses in Northern Ireland. He said:
The troubles may have been a factor at particular times, and they may have been the reason why new industries did not come.
The newspaper report added:
He said the troubles were only one of three reasons—equally balanced—why the Province had lost 65,000 jobs in the past 10 years. The others were the general United Kingdom economic decline and our inability to be competitive.
Mr. Simpson went on to say:
Competitiveness was hit by rising fuel and transport costs, and the cost of raw materials.
We must look at our cost structures and those costs within our control such as labour costs per unit of output.
We cannot attempt to change the unchangeable such as our distance from markets, fuel costs and lack of raw materials, but we must look at our efficiency.
Mr. Simpson may have been rather closer to the mark in those comments than the simple view that Northern Ireland's limping economy owes its lameness to the terrorist dimension.

Mr. John Patten: Does my hon. Friend recognise that Mr. John Simpson, who is an extremely distinguished economist of Queen's university of Belfast, and whose views I respect, was talking about the loss of existing jobs and the effect that terrorism, together with all the other factors that my hon. Friend has mentioned, might have had on the loss of those jobs? He was not talking about terrorism inhibiting inward investment from countries as far apart as Japan, the United States of America and the mainland of Great Britain. Does my hon. Friend recognise that opinion surveys in the United States of America have demonstrated, all too clearly, that business men perceive Northern Ireland as a place in which it is not safe to invest?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I believe that my hon. Friend will find that he has intervened too early in my speech. I recognise the force of some of his comments, but Mr. Simpson was saying that "we must look at our efficiency", and I propose to develop that theme.


The cost of investment in industry in Northern Ireland has been brought forcefully home to me as the result of the experience of a company in my constituency which is currently having one of its products manufactured in Northern Ireland, but which is now questioning the cost of having work done in the Province in a way that I have not heard questioned before. I have not heard the point referred to adequately by the Front Bench of this or any other Government while I have been a Member of Parliament.
The tax concessions and financial benefits available to companies setting up in Northern Ireland are on a par with, or possibly better than, any inducements available anywhere in the United Kingdom, and are certainly on a par with anything available in Southern Ireland. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) shakes his head, but I have been assured of that on a number of occasions. If he wishes to make the point that that is not so, I shall listen to his intervention.

Mr. Soley: The committee that looked into this matter recommended in a recent report that benefits should be increased to the level existing in the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the answer that I received on the Floor of the House during Northern Ireland Question Time, when I was assured that the tax benefits available in Northern Ireland are on a par with or are better than those available in the South? If what the hon. Gentleman said is correct, the Minister who answered my question should return to his Department and ask it to give him something akin to an apology, because I think that he is in danger of having misled the House. We believe the inducements to be great and we have all accepted that they would be looked at against the background of the times.
The Minister is convinced that, at least in North America, the troubles dominate the thinking of business men who might be encouraged to invest in the Province. It has been argued that if we are to have investment we may have to take high-risk investment such as De Lorean, because if the high-risk investment is not picked up there will be no investment. There is the outside chance that high-risk projects will work, and if they do there is new industry, employment and prosperity. It is an attractive argument.
I wonder whether we should look at the high-risk investment and see whether the benefits currently being offered are going in the right direction. The company is my constituency, Gowrings Mobility International, has invented an extremely clever device whereby a disabled person using a wheelchair can get into any car on the market if the device is fitted into the car. That person, who otherwise would not be able to travel as a passenger, can even be the driver. I have seen the device and I know that it works. It was developed with a Government grant, initially on this side of the Irish Sea, but when Gowrings was looking at production it looked round our country's manufacturing industries and discovered that in its opinion C.P. Trim—a subsidiary of De Lorean—could probably manufacture the device better and more efficiently than any other company.
In consequence, it has signed a contract with C.P. Trim to make the device, which is called Freelancer. having accepted that C.P. Trim could make this device more

efficiently than anyone else, and having assumed that by going to Northern Ireland it would get a very good deal, the company now finds itself forced to examine the continuing cost of manufacturing in Northern Ireland. In a letter to me, the managing director of Gowrings Mobility International said:
The cost areas involved are raw materials transportation to Northern Ireland, finished goods transportation from Northern Ireland to their destination, and excess costs of people in crossing the Irish Sea including both lost hours and travelling costs. All these are in excess of equivalent manufacturing for companies established in England. Based on our target market, one year's costs alone would be as follows: transportation costs of raw materials to Northern Ireland, £61,425; finished goods transportation from Northern Ireland to their destination, £65,120; excess cost of people in crossing the Irish Sea, £6,600; a total of £132,965 or 9·07 per cent.
Everyone knows that an extra 9 per cent. on costs in the present competitive economic climate makes a product uncompetitive. My suggestion to the Government is that, instead of giving so much assistance to those who set up factories in Northern Ireland, we should be asking whether the grant is being given in the right direction. We should be asking whether the subsidising of transport costs across the Irish Sea might not make Northern Ireland a more attractive manufacturing area than it is.
That brings me back to Mr. Simpson's remarks about efficiency and the need to keep down costs. We should not consider his comments in terms of the past, but should view them in terms of today and the future. I remind the Minister of some words of Sir Matthew Slattery, the chairman of Short Brothers and Harland in the 1950s, when I worked in that company. Sir Matthew told me that Northern Ireland should concentrate on building ships and aircraft because both had their transport costs built in. The point was good. Sadly, however, Northern Ireland cannot concentrate exclusively on those two products. Transport costs therefore seem to become a much more important factor. It is an issue that deserves a great deal of consideration by the Government and all those involved in trying to encourage industry to come to Northern Ireland.
Sir Matthew Slattery referred to aircraft as one of the products on which Northern Ireland should concentrate. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North referred to Lear Fan. Only yesterday I received a very full parliamentary answer—for which I am grateful—from my hon. Friend the Minister of State to some questions that I had put about the financing of Lear Fan and the amount of public money being committed to the project. In his reply to my questions about the company's financial structure my hon. Friend said that the original grants and loans made to the company would not be recovered. His reply was:
The new agreement concluded on 14 September 1982 has various elements. It provides that no recovery of the original grants will be sought, while the original loan is in effect converted into a per capita employment grant".
My hon. Friend is saying, if I understand his answer correctly, that £16·25 million is being written off. I must not get the Minister muddled. In the first part of his answer he refers to a grant of £7·02 million. He describes a loan of £9·23 million and then refers to a subsequent loan of £9·07 million. Is he, in effect, saying that the write-off at this stage is £25·32 million, or is he referring only to the first grant and the first loan?
My hon. Friend then explains to me that although this money may have been written off, under the new structure of the company and assuming that it produces production


aircraft, the Government stand to receive $35·75 million on sales of aircraft. It is not unreasonable, I suppose, to translate the figure into pounds and to say that we are talking of £15 million to £16 million. My hon. Friend seems to be saying that although we have written off £25 million, we might get £15 million back. I should like him to clarify that. He does not say how many aircraft have to be sold before we get the £15 million, nor does he tell me whether there are any further royalties on aircraft made over and above the figure that produces that sum. If it is not possible for my hon. Friend to give an answer tonight, I should appreciate a letter in the near future.
I am asking these questions because I have already referred to high-risk investments in Northern Ireland. As the first hon. Member to raise a question about the De Lorean project on the Floor of the House, I suppose that I have a certain uneasy feeling that another high-risk project is not being described to the House in quite the detail that it should be. Without those facts, all sorts of other doubts are bound to be created.
I wish to press my hon. Friend a little further. He says that the Government have agreed to extend the bank guarantee to 31 December 1986. What is he talking about? Is he talking about the $15 million bank guarantee on which the business started, or is he referring to a much larger figure? My hon. Friend went on to say that the Government had agreed
to provide further public funds up to a maximum of $30m in a pre-determined ratio with private sector money which will ensure that by far the greater part of the new funding is met from the private sector. Her Majesty's Government's share of this funding will be contributed as a secured loan".—[Official Report, 8 December 1982; Vol. 33, c. 537.]
I should like to know by whom it will be secured and on what?
Lastly, will my hon. Friend tell us more about the Saudi Arabian consortium, of which the Government now appear to be a minority partner. I am sure that my hon. Friend has seen the exposé—or whatever one likes to call it—in the article in the Belfast Telegraph of 30 November. The writer is not sure who the Saudia Arabian prince is who heads the consortium. If so much public money is flying on the back of this aircraft, and if there are financial problems of the kind that my hon. Friend described in his answer, now that the business has been refinanced and restructured, could he tell me and the House of Commons who is in the consortium, how much finance the Government have put up, and whether the 5 per cent. stake in the company which the Government apparently have will produce any worthwhile return? In particular, how soon does he expect the Government to show a profit on their initial investment?
I am well aware that to aeronautical engineers the Lear Fan is an exciting project, but so was De Lorean to some motor engineers. I should like to think that Lear Fart will have a bright future, but as we have already had to write off £25 million of public money, I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for having the doubts that I am expressing this evening.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: This debate has ranged between the economic sphere and the political sphere. I shall say a few words about both and ask one or two questions.
The general economic tone of the debate has been fairly pessimistic. There is no doubt that Northern Ireland has

suffered, like the rest of the United Kingdom, from the general world economic slump and from what some of us strongly believe are the wrong and false economic policies of this Government. There is no doubt that there is equality of treatment—perhaps some of us would say equality of mistreatment. We are in a vicious circle, as was said earlier. There is no doubt that terrorism and acts of terrorism prevent investment—or some investment—coming into the Province, thus increasing unemployment. On the other hand, unemployment, particularly among young people, provides a fertile breeding ground for the various terrorist organisations. Somehow we have to break out of the circle.
I am convinced that one—not the only, not even the major, but an important—solution to the problems in Northern Ireland would be to overcome unemployment. It would not solve everything, but it would help substantially.
I should like to ask some questions about the Industrial Development Board. Under Class II, Vote 6 there is £420,000 for the salaries and fees of five representatives and 13 locally employed staff in overseas countries. Can the Minister give us more details about that? In which countries are these people? Is it the board's intention to increase the number of staff working overseas? Is it the board's intention actively to have staff in the various countries seeking new orders? Is there any part of the world which the board thinks is particularly fruitful?
In that context, I should like to say a word about aid to industry in Northern Ireland that could come from the European Community's regional fund. One reason why the United Kingdom does not do as well out of the EC regional fund is the insistence by successive Governments on the principle of additionality. The European Community is keen on giving regional aid, not as a substitute for money spent by national Governments, but as an addition to it. This issue is one of the few matters on which there is agreement among the three elected Members of the European Parliament from Northern Ireland. I understand that the three Members—one from the DUP, one Unionist, and one SDLP—have worked together closely out there in this connection.
I hope that the Minster will answer today the question raised by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) about the relative tax benefits in the Republic and Northern Ireland. I understand—this is what the Select Committee report said—that there are better tax benefits in the Republic. That is one reason why the Republic has been more successful than Northern Ireland in attracting overseas investment. Will the Minister clarify that? If, as the hon. Member for Newbury said, there is no difference in the tax benefits, we should look at the matter again, but I understand that there are substantial tax benefits.
I shall say a brief word about the political side. Until the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) spoke, I was becoming increasingly depressed. It seems to me that there are people in this Chamber now who legitimately opposed the setting up of the Assembly and who are now quite determined to make sure that it does not work.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: We do not have to.

Mr. Mitchell: That is the politics of pessimism. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, "For God's sake, give it a chance." It has only been in operation for two months, yet it has been condemned by people, just to prove that They


were right in opposing it in the first place. May I say, iń parenthesis, that every time the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) stresses the all-Irish dimension, he makes it far less likely. As the hon. Member for Belfast, West said, in 1974 power-sharing might have succeeded—it did succeed for a short time—but it was destroyed because of the insistence on the all-Irish dimension.
I want to ask one or two detailed questions about the expenses and salaries of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I think I am right in saying that Members of the Assembly will be paid and receive secretarial expenses and travelling expenses, even if they do not attend. Will Sinn Fein Members or SDLP Members who say that they will not participate be entitled to those benefits?

Mr. McCusker: When those Members sign on, they will be paid. They will be paid from the commencement of the Assembly, so that if they choose to arrive there on the last day and sign the chit, they can obtain their £5,000 or £6,000.

Mr. Mitchell: I ask the Minister to clarify that. The hon. Gentleman was talking about salaries. I am not sure whether the same applies to secretarial and other expenses.
I understand that someone who is a Member of this House and also a Member of the Assembly receives two salaries. That is a little odd. Why do we not have the same rules as for hon. Members who serve in both the European Parliament and the House?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Because that would interfere with the process of bribery, which was to be the motive force behind getting the Assembly set up.

Mr. Mitchell: I do not know how to answer that. That is the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. There seems to be no reason why the same arrangement that applies to Members of the European Parliament and Members of the House should not apply to hon. Members and Members of the Assembly.

Mr. Molyneaux: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. The former Secretary of State from the hon. Gentleman's party said to me on one occasion that my idea of a regional council was sound and perfectly workable, but that it had one defect: one could not find an excuse for paying the blighters.

Mr. Mitchell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has my party right. That is his point of view.
After the statement on Tuesday, I asked the Under-Secretary how he saw his relationship with elected members of the Assembly who have declared that they will not attend. I asked whether he would be prepared to meet them. As I said that, I heard the right hon. Member for Down, South mutter that he must do so because they are elected Members.
How does the Minister see the constitutional position? If a Member wanted to see the Minister about a constituency case, that is one thing, but if a member of Sinn Fein wanted to discuss policy with the Minister, that is another. One can divide the local constituency interests from policy matters.
I do not blame the Under-Secretary for not answering me on Tuesday. He was thrown into the deep end, when the Secretary of State could not make the statement. He

had not been briefed on that point. Perhaps the Minister of State could give an answer now. I hope that the Assembly will work.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman hopes that his party will get a majority at the next election.

Mr. Mitchell: I hope that my party gets a majority at the next election. I have no idea whether my hopes will be realised. All that I will say to those who seem determined to break the Assembly, as they have been determined to break other institutions and initiatives taken by other Governments is: "Give it a chance." Many of us would rather hope, even if our hopes are not fully realised. As a member of the Social Democratic Party, I would rather hope than take the pessimistic line of those who always want to say: "I told you so."

Mr. Harold McCusker: I tell the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) that against all my better judgment, for six months I hoped. I listened to substantial arguments by Opposition Members and Conservative Members, which were sound enough to convince me that the Assembly was unworkable. I refused to believe it. During the debate, I participated only once to say that I had some hope, but otherwise I sat back and stayed silent.
I have had four or five weeks experience of the Assembly. Unless the legislation is changed substantially and the parameters governing it are changed, and unless the structure can be radically altered, there is not the slightest possibility of it being of any value. I started from the premise that the hon. Gentleman suggested, hoping against hope that the Assembly was a means of helping the people of Northern Ireland. If I go on hoping, all I am doing is offering the people hopelessness. Ultimately, the Assembly will come down around our ears in disaster and disaffection and the people will lose more faith in the democratic process.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Would the hon. Gentleman have more hope or less hope if the SDLP could be persuaded to take part in the Assembly?

Mr. McCusker: If the real opposition in Northern Ireland, the SDLP, was in the Assembly, that would give the Assembly the appearance of a more democratic structure. However, if one has to pay a price to get it there, which has been shown time and again to be unacceptable to the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives, we shall not get further.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman outline the changes that he would like?

Mr. McCusker: I should not be drawn down that path, but 12 months ago at Hillsborough Castle the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told me in the presence of two others that he believed that power sharing was dead and that it was incompatible with the democratic process. I remembered that during all the debates and arguments and during all the attempts to camouflage and confuse. At the back of my mind was the belief that if the Secretary of State worked on that premise, we could construct something at Stormont that would build a substantial role for a minority without converting them into a majority—a more substantial role than has been envisaged for any


minority in the House, an important role that gave them the exercise of power and control over the exercise of power by others, which would never be envisaged here.
However, at the end of the day, as has been proved at Northern Ireland Question Time, the Secretary of State is as firmly on the hook of compulsory power sharing with the SDLP, if not with Sinn Fein, if one extends the argument, as any of his predecessors were. Smaller technicalities could be eased if one had the opportunity, but one cannot overcome that major hurdle.
I shall raise under Class II, Vote 6 a matter that I have raised time and again over the past six years, which is the future of the Northern Ireland gas industry. During the past two weeks my commitment to the Northern Ireland Assembly and here have conflicted with meetings that I might have had with the Minister. A fortnight ago, the Northern Ireland Gas Employers Board arranged a meeting with the Minister. I declare an interest as chairman of the board. I receive no remuneration for that. My interest is purely for the betterment of gas consumers and the industry in the Province. I could not see the Minister with my colleagues, as we were preparing to confront the Secretary of State at the Assembly. Yesterday the Minister made some interesting comments about gas in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but my responsibilities ensured that I was here. Therefore, I am taking this opportunity to try to obtain some information on this' subject from the Minister.
The Minister understands my deep commitment to the matter for six years. For four years, month on month, along with others from Northern Ireland and those interested in its affairs, I have raised the matter on the Floor of the House and in Committee. We have discussed it inside out. The Northern Ireland Economic Council became involved and commissioned reports. The Northern Ireland Gas Employers Board raised a great deal of money and commissioned high-powered reports. We considered and analysed those. We ripped them apart. We considered all the alternatives. We did everything but take the matter on to the streets of Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] The trade unions took the matter on to the streets. There are 1,200 jobs at stake and we were grateful for their support. It would take a great deal of money to generate 1,200 secure jobs in Northern Ireland.
I am anxious to ensure that Northern Ireland consumers have the same breadth of choice in energy as their fellow citizens on the mainland. I am also anxious that we should attempt to reduce the burden of energy costs, not only on the domestic consumer but on the industrial and commercial consumers as well.
After all that, a little less than three years ago the Government announced that they had come to the conclusion that the Northern Ireland gas industry could not survive and said that they would introduce legislation to bring the industry to a speedy end. Compensation would be offered to domestic, industrial and commercial consumers to assist them to convert to other fuels, and so on.
Only then, after years of asking for our share of the nation's North Sea natural gas resources, was I left with no alternative. If I could not get an east-west interconnector to bring natural gas from the North Sea, there was a possibility that the Northern Ireland gas industry might survive if we could establish a north-south interconnector. I use those terms deliberately because I do not want to consider any political implications. We

originally wanted an east-west interconnector but if we could not have that we would have settled for a north-south interconnector.
At considerable political risk to myself I spoke to the Minister for Energy in the Dublin Government. I asked him two simple questions—"Have you enough gas to sell to us and are you prepared to sell it?" The answer to both those questions was yes. As a result of that, and with pressure from a variety of sources, the Government said that they would reconsider their decision.
I am sure that part of the pressure on them was political. They had just launched the London-Dublin talks. Some practical achievement had to come from them and this appeared one way of showing that there was some value in London-Dublin co-operation. I did not object to that if it was to have a lasting benefit for my constituents and the gas consumers in Northern Ireland, so long as no political overtones or consideration was applied. I was prepared to justify that.
If other people wanted to say that it had political overtones, that was a matter for them. We can discard such suggestions—just as there are no political overtones to a bottle of Guinness, or to the fact that the territory of Northern Ireland is invaded four times a day by CIE trains running on the line from the border to Belfast. There are no political overtones to the ebb and flow of commerce across the international frontier on the island of Ireland.
I was happy to see progress being made in that way because I was told that the charge to the public purse would be substantially less. It could be justified and could become an economic proposition. Then the Minister sent my board a paper for consideration which says:
The proposal to bring to Northern Ireland a supply of natural gas from the Kinsale field rests upon a series of assumptions—
(a) That a capital investment of some £150 million may be carried out successfully and that the facility created may be managed efficiently.
One hundred and fifty million pounds is substantially above any figure that was ever mentioned for the east-west interconnector. If the Minister wishes, I can produce the figures and I hope that we shall be able to discuss them in detail at some time. One hundred and fifty million pounds strikes me as about twice the original price of the east-west interconnector.

Mr. Adam Butler: If one were to deliver gas to Northern Ireland, one would first have to assess the cost of getting it there. Therefore, if it is assumed that the internal costs must be the same for each option, one is talking about getting gas to the border from the South—whether a contribution to that is necessary—contrasted with the immense cost of bringing a pipeline under the sea. That is the difference.

Mr. McCusker: I hope that the Minister is not entering into an agreement whereby we pay for a pipeline on the territory of a foreign country. When he and I have discussed this on other occasions it has been obvious that the Republic would get a return for its pipeline investment by building in an increment to the price per therm of gas that would eventually be sold to us. It would be an extremely dangerous precedent for us to invest our money in a pipeline over the territory of the Republic, particularly when that pipeline would be used by them, naturally, to supply the substantial development north of Dublin, Drogheda and Dundalk and probably several other places as well.


I am assuming that £150 million is the cost of a land pipeline from the border to Belfast for the cost of a much smaller diameter distribution network throughout Northern Ireland—whatever parts of the Province would be served by natural gas—and the continuing capital costs which would be associated with establishing a natural gas industry.
I must compare that cost with the cost of bringing the pipeline across parts of Scotland, where we could have expected a contribution towards its cost from the mainland expenditure, and the cost of the pipeline under the sea. The distribution and capital costs then remain the same. One hundred and fifty million pounds does not come within a hound's gowl of the price that we were talking about at that time.
Experts thought that if one were seeking a contract to lay a gas pipeline now, as compared with four or five years ago, there is a chance that whereas the pipe would naturally cost more, the cost of laying it might be proportionately less, because there is no longer the boom in pipeline laying. There is now competition within companies for such contracts, which places one in a much more advantageous position.
The Minister will have to convince me—it is a point that he tried to make when he addressed the Assembly—that if we save these jobs and the industry and give gas to the consumers in Northern Ireland at a reasonable cost that is not a political decision to spend this money because it happens to be coming from the Republic instead of from an east-west interconnector. I say that because, while the Minister referred in his statement to the Assembly to United Kingdom reserves, there seems to be a good gas field off Kinsale head. All the evidence shows that.
However there is only one tap from that field. That one well will supply the Republic's industry, will service the whole of Dublin and, if the project is carried through, will eventually service the gas industry of the island of Ireland.
Apparently, a derogation was obtained some years ago from the EC by the Government of the Irish Republic to the effect that the gas could be used to generate electricity. If my information is correct, a substantial amount of electricity is now being generated from that gas. One platform disaster, one undersea disaster or one accident along the pipeline would put the whole island of Ireland at risk. That is why professionals in the Republic, and even some politicians in the Republic—although they dare not say so publicly—are as keen about an east-west interconnector as a north-south interconnector. They are very conscious of the vulnerability of their industry and electricity generation. In the same way, we shall be vulnerable at the end of the pipeline if there is no east-west interconnector.
Will the £150 million be the investment that I want it to be? Might it not be in the interests of the island of Ireland, of future co-operation and good neighbourliness— which, after all, is what we want—to invest the money in bringing reserves of natural gas to Northern Ireland from the North Sea? The Minister must accept that the citizens of Northern Ireland are entitled to their share of natural gas from the North Sea. Although reserves may not be high at present, negotiations are going on about the gas-gathering scheme in the North Sea and United Kingdom reserves should be increased.
Negotiations are taking place with Norway to contract for more gas to take us, perhaps, into the next century. There is also a possibility that gas from Siberia will eventually find its way to these shores. Just as I am sure that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) does not think that there are any political overtones in bringing red gas to our shores, there are no political overtones in bringing green gas to Northern Ireland.
The people of Northern Ireland want to ensure that if £150 million is available for the project, it is used on the right interconnector. They want to ensure that the north-south interconnector is more cost-effective than the east-west interconnector. Yesterday, the Minister had no doubt about it. He said that it was simply a matter of cost.
Will the Minister give us the breakdown? Will he convince me that it takes £150 million to run a pipeline from the border of Belfast, to distribute gas in a limited area of Northern Ireland and to build the right infrastructure? If not, I shall start campaigning on the east-west axis once again. The only justification for the other direction is that of cost, but the cost that was mentioned to us was much smaller than £150 million.

Mr. John Dunlop: Under the heading of Class IV, Vote 1 on expenditure on roads by the Department of the Environment, I wish to return once more to the hoary problem of the Strabane bypass. I am sure that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), and the Minister responsible for the environment in Northern Ireland will have noticed that the Secretary of State for the Environment recently urged local councils to go ahead with building bypasses in the many parts of the mainland where they were needed to ease urban traffic problems.
In March 1983, it will be four years since a public inquiry came down in favour of a bypass for Strabane. That bypass is much needed. I attended the inquiry and was a witness to it on three consecutive days. What progress has been made in implementing the inquiry's findings? Some may ask whether I am weary of bringing up this issue at every opportunity. I am weary not of bringing it up, but of trying to get from the south of Strabane to the north, which I do about once a month. It takes about half an hour to do one-quarter of a mile because of the horrendous traffic conditions.
I have exhausted my vocabulary in describing the situation. Has anything been done? Is the Strabane bypass included in the £8·5 million subvention for roads? Will something practical and urgent be done to implement that much needed project? As well as raising this subject at every opportunity, I have stressed the need to find work for those living in the worst unemployment area in the United Kingdom. I have said time and again that factories to the south of the town have been vacated by multinational companies that have left Northern Ireland after the tax and rates honeymoon. There is a great need for something practical to be done for the area.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) highlighted the problem of poverty in his constituency. I know the conditions in Strabane because I see them regularly. Something must be done very quickly for the town and for the whole area.
Several hon. Members have pointed out the absence from the Northern Ireland Assembly of the SDLP, which


is about the third largest party elected to it. We have heard their fatuous and sulking excuses as to why they will not take part in the Assembly's deliberations.
Last Monday morning, I was invited to the Ulster polytechnic for a seminar on unemployment and the economy of Northern Ireland. Much to my surprise, two members of the SDLP were among those who attended the debate. They made effectual contributions. I expressed surprise in my speech at the monumental anomaly that they were prepared to attend, just on invitation, a seminar on the major and composite problem of unemployment and the economy. They contributed to that debate and yet they refuse to attend the forum where they could most purposively and practicably contribute.
One of those Members sat opposite to me in the former Assembly and made effective and useful contributions. Why could not he and his colleagues attend the Assembly? They should be there. They were elected by the people to go there and they are failing to represent them. I am surprised that they should go to one seminar and yet refuse to attend the Assembly, to which they were elected by many Northern Irish people.

Mr. James Molyneaux: My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) dealt convincingly with the urgent need for a re-think by the Government of their attitude towards the supply of natural gas. In addition to the valid arguments that he put forward, I have doubts about the advisability of embarking on the Kinsale gas scheme. Forecasts from authoritative circles in Dublin suggest that the life of the gas field may be reduced from 30 to 15 years because of the excessive extraction rate. I am sure that the Minister will take that consideration into account when he contemplates the cross-capital expenditure that is likely to be incurred on the soil of a sovereign independent Republic.
In clause 10, we are asked to authorise the expenditure by the Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Department of a large sum. I wish to see part of that sum, at least, devoted to re-starting work on building the much-needed new area hospital in Antrim, but as that expenditure comes under the heading of expenditure on non-contributory benefits, I shall leave that thought with the Minister of State, and no doubt he will convey it to the Under-Secretary. I leave with the Minister my promise—he may interpret it as a threat —to return to the subject in the near future, because Antrim cannot continue to be pushed back year after year. The site has already been purchased, the site works are almost finished and all that remains is for a courageous Minister to give the go-ahead for the building.
The Under-Secretary complained earlier that his Department was neglected when it came to tabling Northern Ireland questions. Whatever substance his allegations have, he can scarcely claim that the same applies to his postbag of problems and complaints about benefits distributed by his Department. I pay tribute to the Minister for his increasingly determined efforts to disentangle the many regulations that govern entitlement to benefit under various headings. Confusion arises, especially with the benefits and allowances designed to assist the young. The Minister is only too well aware of my representations on behalf of my constituents, and I assume that right hon. and hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies have been similarly

engaged. I assume that they have become aware of the frustration of those youngsters, who were led to expect that they had some entitlement, only to be given contradictory answers.
I suspect that much of the confusion arises from the introduction of a series of schemes with accompanying regulations that are not understood clearly by those charged with the task of administering the schemes. I do not criticise the hard-pressed staff in the social security offices, who are doing their level best, but they are not always given the guidance that they need. I know about the burdens imposed upon comparatively junior staff. Will the Under-Secretary of State consider the provision of much clearer guidance to his staff, especially junior staff, who man the offices?
Although we welcome the merger—it was referred to earlier as the marriage—of the manpower services and commerce Departments, we wish to be assured that the confusion and overlap that we see all too often in Whitehall when such an operation is attempted, will not be repeated in Northern Ireland when the new structure takes final shape. The new structure will comprise the Department of Economic Development and its offshoot, the Industrial Development Board.
I know that the Minister of State is as anxious as hon. Members to ensure that the new board does not become another layer to be penetrated by enterprising business men and industrialists. I hope that those who have accepted the task and the responsibility of manning the new board will see their function as one of removing obstacles and slashing red tape. I hope that they will not sit around and wait until they are approached by enterprising business men and industrialists, but that they will go out and seek those who have proved in the past that they are willing to have a go and who feel that they have something to contribute to the economy of Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): As is the custom in such debates, we have ranged far and wide and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have allowed us extra latitude on some subjects. That latitude has been fairly taken. The debate has split into two parts—the economy, and the aspects of the Assembly's proceedings that relate to the appropriation order.
I start by refuting, as I so frequently have to do, the charge by the spokesman for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), that we have no industrial strategy. Either he has failed to read what has been said or prepared on this subject, or he has failed to listen to what I have said to him in the House on a number of occasions or, if he has done so, he will not accept that there is that strong and positive policy. Et is based on a worked out and a worked through approach to industrial promotion. It is backed by machinery which has been specially and recently reorganised to give us the best back-up on promotion and administration. It is also supported by a most generous package of financial incentives.
I must also reject the Labour Party's policy on Northern Ireland, which can be summed up as one of voluntary compulsion towards unity with the South. The hon. Gentleman says, and accents, that it will be by consent, but he then goes on to say, "We will achieve this." I say to the hon. Gentleman and to his party that they have no


right to tell the people of Northern Ireland what their future shall be. That decision should be taken by them and with the consent of this House. The Labour Party's policy in that respect is wrong.
I reject another point that the hon. Gentleman made in his speech. I rejected it recently at Question Time. I do not believe that his idea of an all-Ireland economic development council would have any hope of success.
Some useful suggestions have been made about industrial development. Some of the questions and points have been raised before. I thank my hon. Friend for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) for his remarks about the Industrial Development Board. He was correct when he said that it had got off to a good start. It is only a few months since it came into being, and so far we like what we see. We have the benefit of those recruited from industry as employees of the board. We also have the benefit of a professionally and commercially experienced board. The not easy relationships between the board, the Civil Service and the Minister are starting to settle down. Those relationships are vital to the success of the Industrial Development Board.
In the context of industrial development, hon. Members found it possible to talk about energy. I am sure that they had industrial costs very much in mind; otherwise a discussion on energy might not have been appropriate to our debate today. It is right that we should consider energy costs in the Province. At the moment, if electricity were not subsidised it would cost much more—£60 million is provided to keep tariffs down to the highest obtaining in particular board areas in Great Britain.
How can we reduce those costs still further? It is conceivable that we could do so through the development of lignite. The lignite deposits look extremely promising. The quantities being discussed amount to 100 million tonnes, and possible more. I am told that it could easily be mined, because it would be open-cast, and if one put a power station on site, cheaper power, relatively speaking, would result. This is a possible source of energy of the greatest significance to the Province, but we are in the early days. It is being questioned whether it should be used for electricity generation or for gasification. I believe that it has an important bearing on industrial costs.
The greater part of natural gas would go to domestic usage. Industry would benefit from a supply of natural gas if it were cheaper than that obtainable through other sources. It appears from the costings that have been carried out that Kinsale gas should be available at prices that will be about 25 per cent. below the present level. The present price of town gas is subsidised by 50 per cent. If we are seeking to provide energy at the cheapest price to Northern Ireland industry, it cannot make sense to add to costs.
I did not seem to get myself across to the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) in my intervention. The possibility of a supply from the mainland—probably from Scotland —was turned down because of the cost of the undersea pipeline. For the costing of the internal distribution network it does not matter where the gas reaches Northern Ireland, generally speaking. Therefore, one has to compare the costs of getting the gas to the border and to the coast.
The hon. Member for Armagh said that there should be some recognition in the price of gas of the cost of getting it to the border from the South. That can be paid as so

much per therm, as a lump sum, or as a mixture of both. However, the hon. Gentleman recognises the need for that additionality. It is my firm claim that it must cost substantially more to bring gas through a pipeline under the sea to Northern Ireland than to take it some relatively few miles to the border from, for example, Dublin or some point of that source.

Mr. McCusker: In the British Gas Corporation's report of 1976 or 1977, and in the updated report produced by Coopers and Lybrand in 1978 or 1979, the global figure was £75 million to £80 million. I want to know how a supply which I am now supposed to accept as being cheaper has reached a global sum of £150 million.

Mr. Butler: The global figure would include the wholesaling network and the distribution. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the costs have been calculated with some care and that the global sum is in the right area. He must accept my argument—I shall repeat it only once more—that if the gas were to originate from the mainland there would be an additional cost in getting it to the coast before it would be possible to start comparing costs. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I will have to enter this argument separately, or the House will wonder whether I intend to refer to any other subjects.
I am sorry that I did not hear the whole of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). He drew on the example of a particular company when he referred to difficulties over transport costs. He was wondering whether it would help the industrial development effort if there were a subsidy to help meet transport costs. This is an incentive which the Government have considered from time to time. The package of incentives that we offer—I think of the automatic assistance, for instance, on capital expenditure of 30 per cent. as the standard capital grant and other measures—is probably the best way of providing help. For certain products where raw materials have to be brought in, and where the finished product may be expensive to transport, transport costs are an important element.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell)—I hope that I am right in welcoming him as the SDP spokesman for this debate—wondered whether we were doing all that we should in terms of overseas development work. I am able to let him have details of the numbers in post.
The hon. Gentleman asked in which countries we particularly concentrated. Historically, America has been our main source of investment, apart from Great Britain. We have people operating in most of the European countries, and we have also made a particular effort in Japan. We need investment from Japan, but we have not yet achieved this.
Our industrial development effort is as well directed as it can be at present. It is as well supported as it can be by the financial package to which I have referred. At the moment I do not believe that money is a constraint. Others have tried to seek investment from America and elsewhere, but those countries are just as affected by the recession as the United Kingdom. On my most recent visit to America I detected little immediate change in the situation there, but I came away somewhat more encouraged by the attitude of American companies towards investment in Northern Ireland. The recession will disappear and recovery will return to both the United


Kingdom and the world economy. I see no reason why we should be unable to return to the levels of investment that existed in the late 1970s. Indeed, I hope we can do better than that.
I reiterate the point that the millstone still around our necks is the image of Northern Ireland in the minds of would-be investors. The damage done to jobs in the Province by tragic occurrances such as those at Ballykelly cannot be overstated.
The Lear Fan issue was raised particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. If I were to answer all the questions that he posed I should keep the House up all night. If he agrees, I shall write to him and, as far as I can, answer all the specific points that he raised.
My hon. Friend raised a doubt in the mind of the House about whether we had another De Lorean on our hands. Since De Lorean got into difficulties I have been doing my best to remove that doubt, because we are in a different ball game. I do not doubt that this is a high-risk project. It is in a different area of technology, but it is not a completely novel concept. The major difference—I emphasise this—is that the majority of funding is of a private nature as a result of the new financial arrangement. This is not straightforward issue. The ratio of private to public funding is about 2:1. People who are motivated by commercial instincts are prepared to provide the vast bulk of the funding to enable this project to succeed. They have confidence in the project, as we do. It must achieve certification. Doubtless it will not always be plain sailing, but as the test of private participation and private commercial judgment has been passed, we should have faith in it and not be worried that it is another De Lorean.

Mr. Soley: I am still anxious. Everyone wants this project to succeed, but certain things have been said in the press and they cannot be ignored. It is all very well to stress the private involvement, but at the end of the day we must know whether the company is properly and effectively run. We must be told that the rumours are untrue. The Minister will not help if he simply writes to his hon. Friend. A clear answer must be given to the House, or the rumours will continue and no one will regret it more than the Opposition if those rumours damage the company.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that monitoring must be carried out. Financial monitoring is being carried out on a regular basis. The Civil Aviation Authority is also monitoring the project at a technical level. That should reassure the hon. Gentleman.
I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman's worry about the management derives. When there is financial restructuring of the sort that has taken place, there is frequently a change of management. The consortium required that a new man with a reputation for tough management be put in at the top. That is the sort of management the project needs. It needs someone who is highly realistic in his approach to business. I therefore hope that there will be no anxieties on that score.

Mr. Molyneaux: Apart from the sounder financial structure, does the Minister agree that there are grounds for confidence, especially in view of the sound management that has done so much to establish this comparatively new technology in Northern Ireland? Does

he also agree that the skills and standard of workmanship are extremely high and, most importantly, than there is proven demand for the product?

Mr. Butler: I confirm that orders for the plane have been remarkable and at present stand at 270. The first prototype and the first pre-production model have flown and have met their specifications. The technology is not novel. The carbon fibre composite material has been used in various aircraft parts, but this is the first time that it has been used for an entire aircraft.
Agriculture features strongly in the Estimates. I confirm what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said about the welcome improvement in this industry. In the event, 1980 was a disastrous year, but income figures improved sharply last year and there is every sign that they will be significantly higher this year. That is a welcome state of affairs.
This is Northern Ireland's largest industry. A great deal depends on it, and Ministers intend that there should be continuity in the industry and support as necessary, taking into account the condition of the market, the prices that are obtaining and the overall availability of funds. Although my hon. Friend did not say that special aid would continue, I should like to think that we can at least find some moneys, as we have done in the past. However, this is still under consideration as part of the public expenditure survey for Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the need for food processing. One part of our industrial development strategy is to target on that sector. It must make sense to add value to one of our raw materials.
I was asked about the circumstances of less-favoured areas. Discussions with the Commission were opened on 8 September this year. Those discussions are continuing with a view to proposals going before the Council of Ministers. I repeat, as I have done before, that if those proposals are accepted there is no commitment at this stage from the Government that the same type of benefits should apply. Indeed, there is no commitment to make extra money available to the extended areas.
Several points about health and social security have been made. Perhaps it will be best if I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten) to what was said by the hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for Antrim, South (Mr.
Molyneaux). I am sure that my hon. Friend will give an appropriate response.
Perhaps I might say the same with regard to Department of Environment issues—those involving expenditure on roads and related matters. The point must be a good one. It is important that there should be co-ordination between road planning, lighting and house building. I am sure that my hon. Friend will reply as appropriate.
These debates would be incomplete if the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) did not take part and give of his wisdom. That would be especially so if he did not refer to the Strabane bypass.
I hope that there will be a plaque which commemorates his name when that bypass is finally built. I mean that almost seriously. He has persevered and fought hard on behalf of his constituents. We all know that Strabane needs help. After similar debates I have often discussed the project with my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell). He is in touch with the council. It knows—at least I hope that it does—that the bypass will


be built. The planning and the agreed route must be approved. Nevertheless, the bypass will be built when finance is available.

Mr. Soley: I recognise that I cannot expect a full reply at such short notice, but I am anxious that the Minister should undertake to consider the conditions of single-parent families and the coal-oil conversion grant scheme that I mentioned.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the first matter is not my immediate responsibility. I shall ask my hon. Friend to reply to that point. With regard to the second, there is a scheme in operation.
I shall now deal with what may be called the second part of the debate—matters arising out of that part of the draft order which deals with the Assembly.

Mr. Amery: Before my hon. Friend deals with weighty constitutional points, will he comment on what my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) said about car parks? Although my hon. Friend seems to have treated the subject lightheartedly, it goes to the core of the argument that some of us have had with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Are we not being a little unduly restrictive in the powers that local government can be allowed to exercise?

Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend is right. I hope that some powers will be transferred to local councils. My right hon. Friend will not lead me into the trap into which he would like me to fall, which is to support the overall line with regard to local councils which I believe him to espouse. If there are particular points about car parks—I am no expert on the subject—I am sure that the Minister will deal with them as appropriate. I was simply amused at the manner in which the difficulty was presented.
Much of what was said about the Assembly-related area of the appropriate order was a re-run of the debates on the Bill, in which I did not take part. In considering how far to go in my reply I am reminded that there is a motion on tomorrow's Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). As the right hon. Gentleman said, some of his remarks were part of that debate and, to use his own term, he was adjourning his remarks against tomorrow's debate. Nevertheless, I shall come to some of the points that he raised today.
I should tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be taking part in the debate on the next order—indeed, he is already in the Chamber—and in the debate on the right hon. Gentleman's motion tomorrow.
The points that were raised are not easy. I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that mischief is being done to Northern Ireland and to our basic constitutional practice. Nevertheless, the points that he raised are immensely serious. A balance must be achieved —there is, as it were, a divide—between accountability and what has been described as hearing things from the Assembly or using it as a sounding box.
The right hon. Member for Down, South surely gave the answer when he quoted the letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Presiding Officer of the Assembly referring to the prior and overriding commitment to Parliament. That must surely be so. I

firmly believe that it is right and proper for Ministers and the Executive in Northern Ireland to consult those who have been democratically elected, but that the dominance of Parliament and the accountability of Ministers to Parliament must be observed. My right hon. Friend's letter confirmed what he has said many times.
We are dealing with what I hope will be a transitional stage. I hope very much that Members of the Assembly will take the opportunities that the Act provides and will find ways to take back power, whether partial or total. In that circumstance, as my right hon. Friend's letter made clear, the situation would change. I cannot agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South that the Assembly Members have put themselves in an impossible position and are frustrated by that position. When they stood for election, they knew the kind of Assembly into which they would go, at least on day 1. They knew that they would not have legislative powers or an Executive accountable to them. They knew all those things, so there should be no question of their being in an impossible position. They have to find the way forward.
The right hon. Gentleman asked two specific questions. The first related to the constitutional role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Northern Ireland. The other, which was not exactly a constitutional point, related to the position of citizens in Northern Ireland who are the constituents of both an Assembly Member and a Member of this House.
To take the second point first, I do not believe that if a case were put to an Assemblyman and then came to a Member of Parliament it would be prejudiced, as the right hon. Member made out it would. The point that matters is whether the rights of the constituents have been changed. It was the right hon. Gentleman who said that the rights of constituents throughout the United Kingdom should be the same. The answer is that they are the same in today's circumstances of Northern Ireland, because those constituents can go through the Westminster Parliament in the approved and traditional way. That is not altered in any circumstances.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If the case has been considered by the Minister at the request of behest of a Member of the Assembly, how can it be said that the consideration of the application by the Minister has not been prejudiced?

Mr. Butler: I hope that if a case came to the Minister for a second time—the instance of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks—it would be reviewed, because that would be proper, and dealt with on its merits. I do not see that it would be prejudiced as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
The parliamentary commissioner issue is complex.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Who would sign the decision letter to the Assembly Member? The Minister will realise that if a decision letter on a representation on behalf of a constituent is signed by a Minister, it will be extremely difficult, in all human practicability, for a different conclusion to be reached.

Mr. Butler: This hypothetical case, which has gone through the Assembly Member to the Minister, has been dealt with and the Minister has signed the letter. If it were brought back to him by the Westminster Member of Parliament, it would land on the Minister's desk and, because it had come back, he would look at all the


circumstances and judge the case on its merits. He might give exactly the same answer as has been given in the first place, but new circumstances and emphasis might be brought to his attention. I see no difficulty, because there are instances where cases are brought back to the attention of Ministers for a second look because an hon. Member does not accept what has been said in respect of his constituent. For a Minister to take a second bite at a constituent's case is not difficult.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am obliged to the Minister for his patience, but can he not see the difference between a Minister coming to a conclusion on a submission made to him in other ways and a submission made to him by an elected representative to whom, as a Member of the House, he is responsible? Surely our whole manner of dealing on behalf of our constituents depends upon the fact that the Minister approaches a case de novo and with an open mind when it comes to him from a Member of Parliament. We cannot do that if the Minister has already done that drill for a Member of the Assembly. If the Minister will not do that for a Member of the Assembly, he is insincere towards the Member of the Assembly.

Mr. Butler: Technically, the Minister cannot look at it de novo, if I understand the expression correctly. He might be able to look at it in secondo, but with an open mind. The very fact that an hon. Member had returned a case to him—certainly if it were the right hon. Member for Down, South—would mean that the Minister concerned would look closely for the second time to see whether there was any particular piece of evidence that he had failed to observe. Hypothetically, it could be that the case made by the hon. Member was a better one, or that he presented it in a different way. The Minister will have to look as freshly as he can at the case for the second time. I may not have reassured the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Down, South on that matter, but I do not think that we shall get any further.
The other matter about which I can perhaps be fairly positive is complex, and I should be happy to write more fully to the right hon. Member for Down, South. The important point is that under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, which established the office of Parliamentary Commissioner for Northern Ireland, the power to transmit complaints to him rested first on Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament and then with Members of the Assembly elected in 1973. That power was transferred to Members of this House only when the Assembly was dissolved. Otherwise there would have been no channel for complaints to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
Now that the new Assembly has been elected, the power has reverted to Assembly Members. The resumption of that arrangement is consistent with the long tradition of separate administrative arrangements for Northern Ireland. It is valid to make the point that in this case there is no ministerial accountability, because the Minister is not involved. The parliamentary commissioner is independent, and individual constituents can use the Assemblyman, the Member of Parliament, or, at local level, his councillor as a channel, or make a direct approach to the Commissioner for Complaints. It is a reversion to the position that obtained before. It is not the case, as the right hon. Member for Down, South was trying to make out, that a long-sacred right of Westminster Members is being taken away.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend saying that the present Assembly inherits all the powers of the previous Assembly? Did we legislate for that in one of the guillotined clauses and, if so, can my hon. Friend refer me to the appropriate section of the Northern Ire Land Act 1982?

Mr. Butler: I shall be delighted to refer my hon. Friend to all the relevant sections. As regards the powers of the Assembly, we debated the Bill for a long time, and he is aware of what power the Act bestowed on the Assembly and its Members.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister must appreciate that the previous bodies, which had the sole right of reference to the parliamentary commissioner, were the bodies which were responsible for the administration of those subjects on which they made the reference to the parliamentary commissioner. It is confirmed now that the House, and therefore hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, remain responsible for all aspects of Northern Ireland government. What is happening is that we are being deprived of a right to secure the services of the parliamentary commissioner, who exists for the purpose, to investigate cases which we believe ought to be investigated in that way.
There is no comparison in this respect between previous Assemblies which had responsibilities and ours. If the Minister likes to compare it with the Convention and tell us that the Convention could send cases to the parliamentary commissioner, let him do so.

Mr. Butler: I cannot add to what I said. It is a return to the position that obtained previously. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest asked what provision there was in law, and the answer is that the Act was passed with a substantial majority.

Mr. Molyneaux: It may be of some help to the Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if I recount my experience when I became a Member of the House. Stormont was still in existence and I could not table a question on any transferred matter in Northern Ireland. For the brief period of the power-sharing Executive, of which the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was a Deputy Chief Executive, I was prevented again from tabling questions on housing, roads, or any other transferred matter in Northern Ireland. A practical way out of the difficulty would be for the parliamentary commissioner to be tied to rulings similar to those of the Table Office.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman refers to matters for which the Minister was accountable to this House. In this instance ministerial accountability does not arise, It is a question of which elected representative should be responsible for this small but important matter of judging whether a case should go to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Northern Ireland. The Act states that it should be the man or woman who is elected to the Assembly rather than the person elected to this House.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Of course Ministers are not responsible for making a reference to the parliamentary commissioner, against themselves. The point is that they are responsible for that administration, the rightness or otherwise of which is referred by hon. Members to the parliamentary commissioner. We are therefore in an area of ministerial responsibility, and we are depriving hon.


Members of the power to serve their constituents by using that channel to bring home the ministerial responsibility for administration to the Minister where it lies.

Mr. Butler: I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's feelings. It is one role which he and his predecessors have practised since 1969, apart from the period of the previous Assembly. Before 1969 there was no parliamentary commissioner. It is as short-lived as that and, as I say, a reversion to previous practice. It is a transfer of one role. That is what the House decided and that is where it stands.

Mr. Amery: I feel that there is a difficulty here. I apologise for pressing my hon. Friend too hard. By what provision in the 1982 Act did the responsibility return to the Assembly as distinct from hon. Members of this House?

Mr. Butler: I do not want to mislead the House by giving a wrong answer. I gather that it was one of the schedules. I shall have to write to those hon. Members who have raised this point. It matters where it appears in the legislation. What matters more, however, is that the legislation has been passed by the House. The practice is now as originally referred to and described by myself.

Mr. Molyneaux: When the Minister studies the papers, before writing to right hon. and hon. Members will he examine the position of the parliamentary commissioner during the period in 1973 after the Assembly had been elected but before the power-sharing Executive was formed? That is the appropriate period.

Mr. Butler: I have said that it is a complex matter. We shall look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised and seek to clarify some of the issues that have been mentioned. I have to fall back on the case that the legislation was passed by the House.
The order allows for moneys to be provided in respect of various Assembly matters. The House has rightly found it appropriate to examine the Assembly's future. I echo what was stated by the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and for Itchen in saying "Give it a chance." This House set up the Assembly. Although certain of my right hon. and hon. Friends and others were opposed to it, the legislation was passed by a substantial majority.
Even my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), with his strong feelings on the subject, but with his usual fairness, suggested that it was conceivable that the Assembly had not totally failed. I can tell him, from the limited amount that I have seen of its activities, that I believe that there is a chance of success. I do not believe that it is great, but the chance is there. The steps are open to be taken by the Assembly and its Members, given some compromise, a great deal of patience and a little encouragement from the House.
There is no question but that politics, security and industrial development in Northern Ireland are all interrelated. Unless we can overcome the violence, we will not get industrial development. Unless we can overcome the poverty of unemployment, we will not remove the temptation and the breeding ground for criminal activity. Unless we can get political stability in the Province, we shall not have a chance either of finally overcoming terrorism or of getting the inward investment and the satisfactory industrial climate that we need. Therefore, there is a great deal to be done by all those involved in these matters. I believe that there is an opportunity to move forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 17 November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.
I invite the House to renew the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. I do so at a time when all are particularly aware of the scourge of terrorism in Northern Ireland and of the misery that it is capable of inflicting. The incident at Ballykelly was ruthless mass murder. It has been condemned by people from all parts of Northern Ireland and well beyond.
Hon. Members might find it convenient if I briefly said where matters stand following the bombing at Ballykelly. I am glad to say that since my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made his statement on Tuesday afternoon, no more lives have been lost, although some people remain seriously ill. Thirty-nine people remain in hospital—25 of them members of the security forces, and 14 civilians. The Chief Constable has set up a team of some 40 detectives under a detective chief superintendent to investigate the incident, and I can assure hon. Members that no effort will be spared to identify and arrest the perpetrators. Our shock and our sympathy are none the less for the passage of two days, but the tasks now are to provide comfort for those who are grieving and the best possible care for the injured and to do everything possible to bring the guilty to justice. I know that all hon. Members will join me in giving our support to the people on whom those tasks primarily lie.
Despite our strong feelings about this outrage and other terrorist incidents, the question of the renewal of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act is a serious one to be addressed carefully, as it is every six months. Hon. Members will be in no doubt about the strength of feeling in the Province, and in Great Britain, about the activities of terrorists. The results of those activities are plain for all to see. No one who has witnessed the consequences of terrorist action—as I did earlier this week—can forget them. Terrorism shows contempt for everybody. It has affected both Catholic and Protestant communities in Northern Ireland alike, and is felt within communities as well as between them. It offers nothing but death and destruction. It is vital that unremitting pressure be maintained on terrorists of every kind. I believe that Parliament should pay the closest attention to the needs of the Province, and to the requirements of an effective security policy there, of which this act is still an essential facet.
The challenge of the terrorist is first and foremost to the rule of law, to which we are unshakeably committed. The law must be applied impartially and fairly in Northern Ireland, as in every other part of the United Kingdom. No one understands what this implies better than the Chief Constable and the GOC. Terrorist outrages are crimes. However, clearly, terrorism is a complex phenomenon. If there were measures that could bring terrorism instantly to an end, I would take them—as Governments and Secretaries of State before me would have done. There are no straightforward panaceas, although it is wholly understandable that people should look for a short cut. We

must seek to create the conditions for a long-lasting end to violence in the Province. A temporary hiatus created by blanket security measures that are indiscriminate, and thus ultimately counter-productive, would do no good. We must not allow ourselves to be goaded into what the terrorist wishes to provoke of us. To be successful, security policy must have the support of the community as a whole, because the first weapon against terrorism lies in the co-operation of the public and in the provision of evidence which can secure convictions before the courts.
We have also to face the fact that terrorism feeds on divisions in the community. For these divisions to be healed, political movement and economic development are needed, but equally needed is constructive, evenhanded and sensitive maintenance of the law. I have no doubt that we can be deeply proud of the security forces in this regard. We owe them a great debt for their unremitting, patient and skilled work on many fronts. I know that the House will join me in paying tribute to the example of courage and sacrifice which they set, and to the unswerving devotion to the law and to duty which they display.
I want again to place on record our abiding sympathy for the relatives and friends of those who have died or who have been wounded in the performance of their duty. I am thinking here not only of what faces the regular Army, the UDR, the RUC and their reserves while they are on duty, but also the shadow cast over them while off duty. This week's outrage at Ballykelly is another—particularly horrific—example of an attack on members of the security forces off duty. We must not forget the number and quality of men and women from Northern Ireland and from Great Britain who have devoted themselves to the community's cause in Northern Ireland, particularly those volunteers who go about their ordinary jobs and are in some danger the whole time from terrorist attack.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As my right hon. Friend rightly says, and as I think we all accept in this House, there is no panacea whatever in the fight against terrorism, but is it not just possible that the introduction of the death penalty for terrorism over an experimental short period might be shown to have some effect on the perpetrators of these devilish crimes, because so far nothing seems to be able to stop them?

Mr. Prior: I do not think so. In any case, I do not believe that the legislation would get through this House. I do not think so, because men who are prepared to fast themselves to death are unlikely to be deterred from committing capital crimes by the thought of capital punishment. I am faced with this problem, and many people in Northern Ireland put this problem to me. In my opinion, that proposal would have a disastrous effect. It would lead to the demonstrations and problems which always start the process of violence all over again. There would be a spiralling effect. It would be 10 times worse than the funerals of the hunger strikers last year and all that that meant in terms of public order and getting away from the normality which, to a great extent, is the normal daily routine in Northern Ireland, as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Although I am in favour of the death penalty, I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would not be appropriate by itself. However, surely it must be clear by now that a great many


perpetrators of these crimes are guilty of treason. Is it not time that we considered implementing the law of treason because that carries the death penalty—it is merely part of the raison d'etre of that crime? It does seem clear that many such people are guilty of treason and that it could be established. This is an area which I would invite my right hon. Friend to investigate with more care, to see whether in the present circumstances we have reached the position where we should introduce this penalty for those who perpetrate clear acts of treason against Her Majesty.

Mr. Prior: My hon. and learned Friend could be right. I understand that treason is still subject to the death penalty. Yet having told me that he is not in favour of the death penalty for the reasons that I have given, he now invites me to seek convictions for treason which would have that effect. That would not get us anywhere at all.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not obvious to all hon. Members that if the death penalty were applied to a terrorist from either side his own side would immediately reciprocate by killing somebody? If it is not, it is a sad reflection on the stage that we are now at. That is the harsh reality that we must face. Both sides can do that. Therefore, it would merely deepen and intensify the terrible problem that confronts us. The death penalty might give satisfaction to some people, but that is all that it would do.

Mr. Prior: The death penalty would not have the desired effect, although one must understand the strong emotions that it arouses among the people of Northern Ireland who have been affected so long by terrorist activity. I do not believe that it would solve the problem in any way. It would make the problem more difficult. Without wishing to dismiss in a cavalier manner what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) said, I shall write to him on this point.
The prevailing security position is a further factor against which we must regularly consider the need for this legislation. This week's incident, taken with recent intersectarian murders and attacks on the security forces, means that killings this year are sadly higher than in any comparable period in 1978 and 1980, although the number still remains below that for 1979 and 1981.
The number of other incidents is also lower this year than last. In the period up to the end of November this year, there were 361 shooting incidents in the Province and 201 bomb explosions. That compares with 784 shootings and 382 explosions in the same period last year. Physical injuries have been 506 compared with 1,244 last year.
There is also the other side—the fruits of the efforts of the security forces. To the end of October 1981, 450 were convicted of scheduled offences on indictment. In the same period this year there have been 617 such convictions.
I do not point to those figures of violence with even the slightest degree of complacency. How could anybody be complacent in such a week as this? Nor can there be a level at which violence somehow becomes acceptable or tolerable. For all of us one death or maiming is one too many. However, we do no justice to the fortitude of the people in Northern Ireland by imagining that the overall position is much worse than it is, any more than we would be deluding ourselves about the character of the terrorist and of his continuing activities.
None of the achievements of the security forces is without financial cost. Indeed, I have recently secured resources to provide for an increase of 800 in the strength of the RUC and the full-time reserve. It has also been possible to budget for an increase of 336 civilians in supporting jobs. I regard this as evidence of the firmest possible commitment to provide the chief constable with the resources he needs to do his job.
I must tell the House that I do not believe that the situation in Northern Ireland is such that it could be said that the emergency measures of this Act are no longer required. Indeed, for the present, I have again to tell the House that the security situation does not allow me to recommend that any elements of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act should be allowed to lapse; and hon. Members will know that when we are renewing the Act the question of amendment cannot arise.
It may be helpful to hon. Members if I briefly outline one or two of the provisions. The three most significant elements of the legislation have been the introduction of non-jury courts to try terrorist cases; the powers of arrest and detention of suspected terrorists which are conferred on the security forces; and the proscription of organisations involved in terrorism.
I shall go into a little detail, because I know that there are Opposition Members who think that these powers should be withdrawn, and I want to explain why I believe that we must keep them. The introduction of non-jury courts reflects the view of Lord Diplock that it was not possible to be sure that jurors could be free from the influences of intimidation or the fear of it. Sadly, that is still the situation, but whereas because of the risk of intimidation the courts continue to need to try terrorists in the absence of juries for "scheduled" offences, the central principles of justice are maintained. The onus remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and witnesses may be called and cross-examined. Defendants have a right to legal aid, to take legal advice and to be represented by a lawyer, and there are safeguards in the operation of Diplock courts, especially the unfettered right of appeal against conviction or sentence.
The legislation provides powers to proscribe organisations concerned in terrorism. It also makes it an offence to belong to such an organisation, or to solicit support for or to recruit for one. But no bona fide political organisation is or can be proscribed. It is not an offence to hold a political belief, whatever it is, nor is it an offence to express that belief provided that expression will not itself cause a breach of the peace. But if organisations openly declare their terrorist aims or demonstrate that the sole purpose of their existence is terrorist violence, those belonging to these organisations must expect to be punished.
There has been much comment and justified criticism in the past few days about the invitation to two members of Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland to visit London. The House well knows the Government's views about this, and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has signed orders under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act excluding Gerald Adams, Daniel Morrison and Martin McGuinness. The decision was his, following an application from the police. But there has been a good deal of misunderstanding and I should like to set the position clear. These people were not excluded because they were members of Sinn Fein or because of the views that they hold. Nor were they excluded because of


the strength of public feeling which has been expressed in the past few days. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is quite clear. Persons may be excluded either from the United Kingdom as a whole, if they are not United Kingdom citizens, or from Great Britain if their primary affiliations are with Northern Ireland, or from Northern Ireland if their primary affiliations lie elsewhere, if there is evidence that they have been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. My right hon. Friend was supplied with such information, and he acted upon it and I agree that he was perfectly right to do so.
It has also been argued that the logic of the decision is that these people should be prevented from circulating in Northern Ireland. I think that the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) was making that point last night.

Mr. Keith Stainton: rose—

Mr. Prior: That is a spurious argument. The distinction between the nature of the information that would satisfy the requirements of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and the evidence of the commission of criminal offences that would be required were people to be arrested and prosecuted, is quite clear. The police will, without hesitation, move against those on whom it has evidence that will stand up in court. Unless and until they have such evidence, there can be no argument that exclusion from Great Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act should lead to arrest on return to Northern Ireland. That has been the position since the provisions were first established in 1974.

Mr. Harold McCusker: The Secretary of State's action last night was illogical as a means of defending the citizens of Northern Ireland from those people. Would it be logical if we had another form of exclusion so that those men could be expelled to West Belfast, the Bogside or the part of Northern Ireland from which they come? The law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland, who suffer from the same threat as is posed to the citizens of London, would be safeguarded at least to the extent that we can put them back in the corner where they belong where, hopefully, they cannot wreak depredations on the rest of us.

Mr. Prior: I do not believe that one could do that; nor does the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) believe it.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: My views are fairly well known. Would the Secretary of State explain the hurry for the exclusion orders? I cannot see why the orders were put through at 7.45 pm yesterday evening. If there had been some consultation, one could have helped him. I still believe that the visit would never have taken place. If the exclusion orders had been postponed for a couple of days or even for 24 hours, there would have been no need for them.
The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that those two or three gentlemen were praying that the Government would do what they have done. I speak only in political terms. I do not know the security aspects of the matter and, if I did, my view might be a little different. Why the hurry, last night, when many other things were happening?

Mr. Prior: I am not certain that I can answer that, as it is the business of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, it is the duty of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, on the information that he has available, to advise the Home Secretary whether the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act should be implemented. Once my right hon. Friend has been given that advice, it is up to him to act upon it. My right hon. Friend would be wrong if he did not act speedily on that information. That is the reason why he acted in the way that he did at that time.
Nearly all of us in the House deeply and bitterly regret the invitation that was given. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) has made no bones about that. I believe that those people would have come and that they wished to come. That would have caused much agonising by many people, but that is beside the point. The Commissioner gave his advice and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary acted upon it.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that there has been a large increase in interest following the incidents this week, in the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Many of those who have a new-found interest in the Act will not agree that the right hon. Gentleman answered the illogicalities mentioned by the hon. Member for Armagh. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he had seen the evidence with which the Home Secretary was provided before he made the exclusion order. In view of the background to the affair, is the Secretary of State prepared to show that evidence to the House, or at least to tell the House what evidence he saw to justify the use of this extraordinary Act?

Mr. Prior: I have not seen the evidence. It is not my responsibility but that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am certain that my right hon. Friend would not be prepared to divulge the information to the House and it would be wrong for him to do so. My right hon. Friend's decision was correct. It was a difficult decision to make, but he could have made no other in the circumstances.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said that it was impossible to expel those people to West Belfast or to the Bogside, but it is possible to expel them to the Irish Republic because they are holders of Irish Republic passports. Why does not the Secretary of State exclude them from Northern Ireland and send them to the Irish Republic?

Mr. Prior: They are domiciled in Northern Ireland. That is their place of residence. It is one matter to exclude people from another country but it is quite different to expel them from the country in which they are domiciled. That is what the Act says. If my answer is incorrect, I shall write to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), but I am sure that it is correct.

Sir Julian Amery: Although I accept that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary acted completely within the legislation, are we not in danger of getting into the embarrassing and awkward position that fairly elected representatives of my right hon. Friend's Assembly are banned from coming to this part of the United Kingdom but are allowed to wander freely in the part of the United Kingdom in which they are domiciled?


Are we making the Province a ghetto for criminals who can wander about there as much as they wish but who cannot come here?

Mr. Prior: First, it is not my Assembly and, secondly, the principle of the Act is not changed by the fact that those people or others were elected to an Assembly. They are domiciled in Northern Ireland and they have a right to be there. They are not criminals. If they were criminals in the sense that charges could be brought against them, it would be the duty of the police to bring charges against them and I am sure that they would.
The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act gives the Government and the security forces the essential powers needed to act against terrorism in Northern Ireland. However, it is perfectly correct that, in dealing with those exceptional powers, we should from time to time check with the greatest possible care whether they need changes. The House will recall that some months ago I announced my intention to establish an independent review of the emergency provisions Act. Some of the measures are similar, although not identical, to the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 which, unlike the Act before us, applies to the entire United Kingdom. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is currently being reviewed by Lord Jellicoe, who is likely to complete his work early next year. That will clear the way for the task of reviewing the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, as I told the House last summer.
There is no doubt that the task will be onerous. It will involve the holding of hearings in Northern Ireland and the collection and analysis of evidence from everyone with an interest in the operation of the Act. I expect the review to take at least six months and I do not wish it to be prolonged. It is important that the review should be conducted by a person of high ability and standing. The Act is complex and the issues that it raises are of fundamental importance. I hope to be able to announce the name of the person to conduct the review before long.
In the meantime, I must ask the House to agree that the evidence of continued terrorist activity tragically speaks for itself. The need to counter terrorism effectively remains, and our security forces should be enabled to continue their task. Thus, the draft order should be approved.

10 pm

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I do not know who said
a week is a long time in politics.
Anyone who has anything to do with Northern Ireland affairs will know after this week that that was an understatement.
I join the Secretary for State in his tribute to the security forces and in his expression of sympathy for all those who have suffered from the violence fostered by the terrorists in Northern Ireland not only in the latest outrage but in all the other outrages that have taken place. I should also like to thank him for the further information he gave about Ballykelly. I am sure that we can discuss some of the security measures at other times.
The Secretary of State was questioned about the death penalty. On a previous occasion when the House discussed

the issue, I gave my views on the effect the death penalty would have on terrorism. I agreed entirely with what the Secretary of State said in answer to his hon. Friends.
The terrible history of Ireland is a perfect example of the effects of the death penalty. When one considers the summary executions which have taken place over the years, if the death penalty was ever going to help to bring peace to any nation, Ireland should be the Valhalla of this world. We all know that it is not.
As a young man I served in Palestine towards the end of the Mandate. I know full well the stresses and strains that were placed on the ordinary soldier in the street when executions were beginning or about to take place in prisons in Palestine at that time. It was confirmed to me later when I spoke to Mr. Begin, now the Prime Minister of Israel, who told me that executions only served to increase the morale and the intentions of the terrorists to go even further. His offhand reply to me as he walked away—he was not the Prime Minister at that time—was, "Anyway, you were not sentencing our people to death. You were sentencing your own people to death". That is what took place. When terrorists were executed, British soldiers suffered as a consequence.
I agree with the Secretary of State that the death penalty would not deter terrorists in Northern Ireland. It would be a spur to recruitment. We do not need the death penalty in Northern Ireland. Other things are required in Northern Ireland. The terrible history of Ireland is its own recommendation that the death penalties and summary executions do not bring peace. They have brought exactly the opposite to Ireland.
Information coming to me from the Army and the families of serving soldiers in Northern Ireland tells me that they feel forgotten, especially this year. It is incumbent upon the House to pay tribute not only to our forces in Northern Ireland but to all the security forces and to everyone in Northern Ireland for the day-to-day grind. It is a day-to-day grind. There is nothing glamorous about serving in Northern Ireland. It is a hard grind. We should be thankful that we have the lads and lassies who are willing to go to Northern Ireland at our behest. We should be careful about how we treat them and how we treat their families afterwards. We cannot treat one section of the British Army, no matter how gallantly it served, differently from any other section of the British Army.
The debate has disappointed me. Much time has passed since the introduction of the emergency provisions and many renewal debates have taken place. I have taken part in most of them. Only section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act has not been continued, but it still remains on the Statute Book. Even after this week—and more importantly this week—it is right that we should take a close look at the legislation.
It is more important now than at any other time closely to examine the Act to ensure that it is doing the job that it is supposed to be doing. The circumstances are changing. Since the Act was considered by Lord Gardiner, the emphasis of terrorism in Northern Ireland and that of the court procedures have changed. We should not treat these renewal debates as formalities. They provide a genuine opportunity to scrutinise the operation of the Act.
I have said everything that I can say about the Act. Everything is well set out in previous debates. Sadly, the emergency provisions are still necessary. Recognition of that fact should not blind us to the real concern that is felt in Britain and Northern Ireland that what began as


emergency measures are becoming part of the normal judicial procedure in Northern Ireland. A study of the Act that was carried out last year showed that 90 per cent. of arrests under the emergency legislation never reached the courts and that only 60 per cent. of cases appearing before the Diplock courts are of a political or terrorist nature.
The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and the National Council for Civil Liberties have expressed continued concern about the arrest and interrogation procedures, the operation of the Diplock courts and the list of scheduled offences. They are unhappy about a procedure that seems to undermine the principle that a person should be presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty.
In his report Lord Gardiner stated that the
Emergency powers should be limited both in scope and duration … they can, if prolonged, damage the fabric of the community, and they do not provide lasting solutions.
One can agree with that.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I hope that the right hon. Gentleman shares the reassurance that I find in the report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights of 1979–80, which expresses relief at the progress that has been made on the problem of remand. It observes that it has not
found any evidence to suggest the previous existence of and the subsequent ending of an Executive practice of detention".
In its most recent report it has not referred to that at all. Progress is being made.

Mr. Concannon: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He is stressing what I said earlier. Clearly, circumstances are changing all the time. This is why we should consider every six months whether the Act is doing what it was intended to do originally.
It is high time that the emergency legislation was reviewed. During the last renewal debate in June, the Secretary of State, in answer to me, said:
I expect to set up the review in September or October."—[Official Report, 30 June 1982; Vol. 26, c. 944.]
When the Under-Secretary of State replied to the debate, he said that I would not be disappointed by the terms of reference. I am disappointed because I still do not know the terms of reference. What has happened? Why has there been slippage from September-October? The delay makes my job especially difficult. In June I was promised an inquiry for which we had been asking for some while. I am sure that the House will accept on reflection that such an inquiry is necessary into the operation of the legislation that we are now asked to renew. I welcomed the announcement of the inquiry, for which we had been pressing for quite a long time.
The Labour Party's policy document contains the following sentence:
there is in our view, a strong case for a fundamental review of the operation of the Act with a view to changing some of its operations and to provide for its ultimate replacement.
We recommend that a review of the Act be given a high priority. That represents the policy that has been approved at the previous two Labour Party conferences. The voting has been virtually unanimous. When the Secretary of State announced his promise of a review, we welcomed it. However, we must know why the slippage has occurred, and I must press the Minister to offer the House an explanation when he replies to the debate. I trust that he

will not disappoint me by failing to tell me what the terms of reference will be. What is the Government's position on emergency legislation? I was glad to be informed that Lord Jellicoe has not yet reported on the PTA. Some of my colleagues have received evidence concerning this emergency legislation. There is a danger that if this legislation remains on the statute book for very long its provisions will creep into other legislation. The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill is now in Committee. It is a matter of concern that the emergency and PTA legislation is now creeping into our domestic legislation.
I warn the Secretary of State that we must have some evidence of action pretty soon about the review. As there is to be another review in six month, I do not want to be in the position once more of asking the right hon. Gentleman when the review will commence. What action he takes might colour the advice that I shall give my hon. Friends about the action we should take against the renewal order as it is presently drafted. I give fair warning to the Secretary of State on this matter. I shall be under continual pressure with regard to the procedures that we adopt.

Mr. McCusker: The right hon. Gentleman has spent much time expressing concern about how the legislation infringes individual liberty on our fellow citizens and how it eats into basic human rights. I have listened to hon. Members on other occasions when we have debated this topic. I have much sympathy with what they have said. I wait for the right hon. Gentleman to make one suggestion which ensures that in six months some of my constituents, who might otherwise be dead might survive until then. Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest something which might save people's lives in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Concannon: That is a fair point. If more people from this House visited Northern Ireland and saw how the hon. Gentleman's constituents had to live, they would be more aware of the difficulties. It would awaken them to reality as to what life in Northern Ireland is like instead of having one-slogan solutions to the problem of Ireland I am talking about civil liberties as well. Bearing in mind the kind of life that I lead, I have to curb my civil liberties, as do a lot of other people. This is why the Labour Party working group went to great lengths to find out from the people of Northern Ireland what the problems were. That is the reason for our policy document. To the surprise of many people, one of the findings was that the emergency provisions were still necessary. It is fair to say that there are certain areas of concern that we must look at.
One of the changes in Northern Ireland concerns intimidation. The Gardiner report recorded 482 instances between 1 January 1972 and 31 August 1974 in which civilian witnesses were either too afraid to make any statement at all or, having made a statement, refused in any circumstances to give evidence in court. In a press notice issued before the last renewal debate, the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights concluded:
In the last two or three years there have been times when there is little doubt that the pressures which would have been exerted on a lay jury could have poisoned and subverted the operation of the legal process. Regrettably, the time for the return of the jury in its traditional role has not yet come.
What has occurred between the last debate and this debate has backed up what the Secretary of State has said about intimidation.
The intimidation of certain people and their families has become more vile and vicious. In addition, the use of


supergrasses as well as intimidation is now rife. Nothing is more demoralising for the legal system in Northern Ireland and for the RUC than to have someone who can give evidence that will put these criminals where they belong, only to find that when the time comes, as a result of intimidation, the witness must pull out thereby allowing the criminals to go free. Certain actions have been circumvented by the use of the small print in the Act, and that is bad for the image of law in Northern Ireland.
Although there are many areas of concern, I shall not rehearse them again, because I did so in my last two speeches. My comments can be read in Hansard of 30 June 1982, columns 947 and 948. I do not intend to spell them out tonight, but they reflect our concern about the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.
The Diplock court system was looked at closely by our working group, and its report stated:
In respect of the Diplock Courts, we do not see any prospect of a return to ordinary trial by jury, so long as paramilitary and terrorist activity continues on the present scale, and witnesses and jury members are subjected to intimidation and violence.
It added:
There is, however, some support for a system of three judges, similar to that in the Republic of Ireland, to replace the single judge courts. We believe this should be given serious consideration".
For goodness sake, let us have another look at this. We want to make sure that the Act is relevant to the situation now, not to 1978 when it was introduced. Things have changed, and the Act ought to be amended in the way that I have suggested. All my suggestions are on the record, and I shall not repeat them now.
The criminalisation policy is the right one to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland, as the paramilitary opposition to it shows. However, if it is to work, it is vital that the normal legal processes should be subverted no more than is absolutely necessary.
I have just mentioned the increasing reliance on so-called supergrasses. I hope that we shall be told about the rumours of unconditional immunities for supergrasses. This is all part of the process of law in Northern Ireland, and we must do what we can to protect it.
Another procedure used in Northern Ireland is the invocation by the DPP of voluntary bills of indictment to bypass the need for committal proceedings. To people outside, it looks as if we are using the law in a way that we would not use it elsewhere. That is also a cause of concern.
I accept the need for extraordinary legal measures in Northern Ireland, but they should not become entrenched. We must be constantly alert to the dangers and question not only the extent to which such measures are needed but the form that they should take. It is futile to examine the security problem in isolation. It must be considered in a wider context, as it will be impossible to make any significant advance on the security front while political conditions remain so inherently unstable. Whoever is confirmed as Taoiseach next week, we should be prepared to discuss the suggestions that have been made with him. We should discuss the all-Ireland police force, the courts and other matters, whether they be political, economic or social. The achievement of peace in Northern Ireland concerns not only the people of Northern Ireland but the people of Great Britain and the Irish Republic.
I was astounded when I read a Minister's speech recently in which he said that the border is now a "non-question". To me and my colleagues it is far from being a "non-question". Nevertheless, we should be moving towards circumstances in which it becomes a "non-question". The Opposition believe that a commitment to a united Ireland on the basis of consent will bring that prospect closer. It is a psychological battle that we must wage. It will not be easy to win it, but we must win if we are to bring peace and hope to Northern Ireland in the long-term. We should not be deterred from pursuing a political solution, nor should we allow a Unionist or an IRA veto.
There is much talk about the guarantee. There are 56 million people in Britain who are the guarantors of that guarantee. I do not know how long those guarantors will go along with what is happening now. My understanding of the British people is that they do not blame just one side. They blame the entrenched positions of both sides of the argument.
The Opposition will not divide the House on the order. Nevertheless, I know that some of my hon. Friends have consistently voted against the renewal order. I do not expect them to act differently tonight. Indeed, I should be a little disappointed if they did not carry on as they have in the past.
The Opposition believe that, unfortunate though the emergency provisions are, they are still necessary. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State must exert himself and get on with the review so that there is not a recurrence of tonight's negative debate. Although the Opposition do not mean that, if I do not receive some assurances or see some action between now and the next renewal debate, my advice to my right hon. and hon. Friends will remain as it is tonight.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: It was a little flippant of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) to say that he might be disappointed if some of his Friends did not vote against the order. It is a serious subject. Nevertheless, I strongly agreed with him when he paid tribute to our soldiers in Northern Ireland.
Those who died at Ballykelly were unarmed and off duty. They were not on operations. In the past few months there has been a change in Northern Ireland in that the Regular Army has, to a cosiderable extent, withdrawn to its proper role in a disturbed Province. It has acted in support of the civil power and in the defence of the land frontier of the United Kingdom.
The gallant men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as distinct from the Regular Army, are much more in the front line and the courage of the part-time soldier on a lonely farm near the border is beyond measure. The Army in support—that has always been the legal position. Sometimes, however, that has been the position more in law and theory than, as today, in actuality.
The primacy of the police is now a fact. Re-armed, re-equipped and rejuvenated, the Royal Ulster Constabulary is clearing up many difficult cases with remarkable speed and efficiency. It is non-sectarian, not merely in the sense that it is made up of Catholics and Protestants —the previous Chief Constable but one was a Roman Catholic and I understand that the present No. 2 is a Roman Catholic—but in the sense that it is trusted by everyone of good will to do its dangerous duty impartially. One thinks


of recent successes against a murderous and sadistic mafia, who debased the title of Loyalist and besmirched the flag that they brandished.
Much credit is due to the co-operative relations achieved between the RUC and the Garda Siochana. In connection with the South, I am sure that we shall all watch with great interest certain judicial processes which may lead to the solution of the important problem of extradition.
The great respect that I have, as I am sure everyone has, for Sir Kenneth Newman—a brilliant Chief Constable of the RUC and now Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis— leads me to endorse his advice to the Home Secretary to issue exclusion orders against the two members of the Provisional Sinn Fein whom Mr. Livingstone, in his admitted ignorance, invited to visit what was once the greatest local authority in the world, although my personal feeling was that the visitors should have been left to the contempt of Londoners.
The exclusion orders have disclosed—not for the first time, as has already been mentioned—an anomaly and a seeming injustice in the application of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, in that men who have the freedom of the streets of Belfast are refused the freedom of the streets of London. But the power exercised under that Act is an arbitrary power, necessitated by the difficulty of convicting terrorists, especially arch terrorists, when Crown witnesses are intimidated and murdered. That arbitrary power expresses the principle,
Salus populi suprema est lex".
Whenever we debate the renewal of that Act or of the provisions before us today, I am not alone in expressing my reluctance and distaste. Nevertheless, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act seems to me no more or less moral or defensible than the power of detention that still residually exists in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I know the arguments. I believe that my right hon. Friend is against any renewal of detention, and I should be hesitant to recommend it except as part of a policy agreed with the Republic. If he is not ready to do that, however, he must have an open mind to the many suggestions put forward—for example, those put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies)—and perhaps look again at the Gardiner proposals for the creation of an offence of terrorism, which might make it easier properly to convict terrorists in the courts.
I do not ask for answers today, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not foreclose options in security matters as he foreclosed constitutional options more acceptable to many of his own party when the Assembly was introduced by the guillotined Northern Ireland Act 1982.
Terrorism, like war, is politics pursued by other means. It is political propaganda pursued by other means. There is never any shortage in our debates of those who suggest that the solution to the troubles is political rather than military. There are two political attitudes on the two sides of the House, which seem to me to encourage the Provisional IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army to continue their dreadful work. There is, first, the nonsensical, self-contradictory and dangerous aim of the official Opposition to bring about a united Ireland with consent.
There is nothing in the voting patterns of either community to suggest that consent to a breach with Great Britain would be forthcoming. The point was made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State that no doubt a Labour Government, if there were ever to be one, would try to erode the will for union with Great Britain. The Minister used the words "voluntary compulsion".
I ask the right hon. Member for Mansfield whose service to Northern Ireland we all respect, whether he should re-consider his party's policy or his own position, as a number of us would ask the Secretary of State and the Cabinet to think again about a policy which we believe feeds Unionist fears and separatist hopes, and thus emboldens terrorists to persevere.

Mr. Tony Benn: This is the first time that I have participated in a debate on Ireland, though I had responsibilities for Northern Ireland as a Minister for many years. My reason for participating in the debate is that the renewal of the emergency provisions this week comes against a background of two events—first, the horrific killings at Ballykelly which have aroused the horror of people all over the country and the world; and second, the use of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisons) Act 1976 to prevent talks from taking place, thus implying that even those who are elected will find no solution in discussion when elected, and will suggest to others that violence is a course of action that offers better results.
Like everyone else in the House, I detest the use of violence and want to see it end, but tonight we are being asked to renew the most draconian powers. Everyone recognises that the powers go far beyond what anyone in this country would accept as being within the range of normal democratic procedures.
The problem does not lie in the detail of the legislation, which the Secretary of State will examine, but in the policy that has failed. We are being asked to continue a policy that has failed. The critics of the policy do not represent the major threat to the Government Front Bench, but the fact that the policy that has been pursued by successive Governments does not work. That cannot be dealt with by rhetoric directed at those who put a contrary view; it can by corrected only by looking at the real position.
Like a growing number of British people, I believe, and have done all my life, that the root cause lies in partition, because partition denied Ireland the self-determination for which the Irish people voted at the end of the first world war. That is why the arguments about the democratic route are not credible in Ireland, because in the North many feel that it was a British Parliament that cheated them of their right to self-determination and that that partition has failed.
I was a member of the Cabinet in 1969 which, after some heart searching, sent the troops into Northern Ireland, in part, it was argued, to protect the Catholic minority from what was happening as a result of the activities of the B Specials and others. That policy failed, too. The troops cannot solve the problem because their prime purpose is to enforce partition and partition is the problem.
When the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) said that we should use the Treason Acts, which carry the death penalty and the Secretary of


State made his position clear, he was putting his finger upon the central item of policy—that to be in favour of a united Ireland is treason.
The other day the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) introduced me to Mr. Ian Smith who was wandering about the House. For 15 years, with the support of the Conservative Party, that traitor ran the colony of Rhodesia. Now, back in the country of Zimbabwe, he faces problems less severe than he imposed on Mr. Mugabe. Once the argument of treason is used, the hon. and learned Gentleman comes to the core of the matter. It is partition that he wishes to enforce by the Treason Acts and nothing to do with temporary emergency provisions.

Mr. Prior: The right hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. If he argues that believing in a united Ireland is treason, it is palpably not treason. Anyone is free to believe what he or she wants to believe. What people are not entitled to do is to work for those beliefs by means of violence and terrorism.

Mr. Benn: Neither are they allowed to come to London to argue their case peacefully. The Cabinet destroyed their own argument against violence by preventing discussion. I have listened to many right hon. and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friends, who have had responsibility for Northern Ireland. For a time, I tried to do my best for Harland and Wolff, Shorts and various other enterprises. I have concluded, like many people, that there is no policy that hon. Members can decide in this House for Northern Ireland. The problem is that we should not be there at all. [Interruption.] I am talking about Britain. I am referring to the policy of the Labour Party at the time of partition. A whole series of conferences culminated in one at Central Hall, Westminster, that came out overwhelmingly against partition. I am referring to the old Labour Party that we need to remember perhaps on this occasion.
The problem is that we can discuss every detail of detention and the Diplock courts, but we do not discuss the basic question. If anyone tries to discuss the basic question, we are told that it could lead to bloodshed. The tragedy is that the bloodshed goes on when we do not discuss the basic question. I have no knowledge, other than what I have read in the newspapers, of the invitation issued by Mr. Livingstone to two members of the new Assembly to come to London. There was a greater furore over the invitation than has occurred over many of the incidents of bloodshed in recent years. I ask myself, "Why?".
Is it because Mr. Livingstone believes in violence? Not at all. Quite the reverse. Time and again, he has made it clear that he is opposed to violence. I shall come to the offence that he is really guilty of in a moment. He does not believe in violence. Is it that the Sinn Feiners are unrepresentative? No, for they have just been elected under legislation established by the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman established the legislation. The candidates were elected. No one can argue that, in their own constituencies, they are not as legitimate as any of us are in our own.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete this passage. I do not wish to occupy too much time. Is it that we can never talk to terrorists? My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) mentioned Mr. Begin. I was in Palestine at the end of the war. I remember that. It is now the official policy of this Government that there should be talks with the PLO. I have been present in this Chamber when Hastings Banda whom I first met as a doctor in Brixton—he used to come to meetings after his surgery carrying his Gladstone bag—was put in gaol by a Tory Government for his alleged part in a "Forest plot". Everyone remembers Jomo Kenyatta. The Government published a Blue Book on Mau-Mau. The annex contained the actual words of the Mau-Mau oath, considered so obscene that only hon. Members could obtain it from the Library. He was a terrorist. So was Mugabe until Lord Soames recognised that he was one of the greatest statesmen of the African world. These arguments do not hold water.
Mr. Livingstone's offence is that he opposes partition. So do I. So do millions of others who want to be free of Britain's responsibilities in Northern Ireland. They do so for many reasons, one of which is that they fear and suspect—and they are right—that many of the techniques that have been developed in Northern Ireland will creep back and be used when our people are faced with the same level of unemployment that is the principal problem over there.

Mr. Proctor: Which hand of the Sinn Fein is he shaking—the one with the ballot box, or the one with the Armalite rifle?

Mr. Benn: I assume that anyone who met the Sinn Fein representatives would be doing exactly what the Home Secretary is supposed to have done when he invited some of them to London in the past. Does anyone believe that terrorism is other than a political definition? The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) said terrorism is "politics carried on by other means", as war—and, if anyone thinks that terrorism excludes negotiations, no war would ever end.
The Labour policy that was mentioned is a great improvement on what has been done before, because bipartisanship is over. We are committed to reunification. We are beginning to erode that veto which is nothing more than a ticket that commands British troops to defend the old partition. However, we should be clear that Britain must withdraw from Northern Ireland. That is what many people feel. The only questions are: How? When? By which Government? Under what conditions?
We shall withdraw. There will be an amnesty. All international conflicts of this kind end with an amnesty. It is not an offence—nor is it a defence of terrorism—to say that it might be right to set a date on it, as we did in Palestine and India. There are precedents that the House would be ill-advised to forget. If we withdraw, we would release some constructive forces to plan for the future. The problems as I understand them, in Northern Ireland are not that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) disagrees with the Pope on matters of theology but that the grinding poverty which was mentioned tonight and unemployment pit one group against another. The Labour movement must play a greater part in the solution of those problems than the presentation of the problem as a sectarial dispute up to now has allowed us to believe.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: rose—

Mr. Benn: I do not want to detain the House, because there are other hon. Members who have much more claim to speak. I shall finish in a moment.
If there is a security crisis during the transfer, some other force, some international United Nations force, is better able to meet that problem than a British force which would be interpreted as being there, not to deal with civil disturbance but to enforce partition.
How can we start that process? We can tonight deny the Government the renewal of this order and force them to think again about these matters. Along with some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I shall go into the Lobby and vote against the order for that reason.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Along with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), I walked behind three coffins in Ballykelly today. The speech that has just been made, and the speech of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), would bring no comfort to the people who mourned today. Rather, they would plunge them into deeper hopelessness and helplessness.
The House should come back to the grim facts of the situation in Northern Ireland. We should realise that we are dealing with people who are totally committed to a campaign of murder and degradation, and who rejoice in it.
I heard Daniel Morrison, one of the men who has been mentioned tonight, on the radio today. He was justifying that dastardly deed that was done in Ballykelly. He said that there was no difference between that and the acts of British troops in the Falkland Islands. That was his thesis. I stood in the wreckage of that inn, from which the bodies were pulled out. Gallant members from this side of the water who serve in the British Army, whose homes tonight are in the same dark shadow of anguish as thousands upon thousands of homes in Northern Ireland, surely realise that no politician has any right to try to justify what has happened in Northern Ireland.
I would go further. It may not be well received on Government Benches, but it needs to be said. The people of Northern Ireland find it strange to hear from Government Benches very strong condemnations of the reception of those two men by the chairman of the Greater London council, when they remember that one of those men was entertained by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That was not right. We said that at the time, and we continue to say it. But what do we find? It is revealed that the No. 2 man at the Foreign Office, the right hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), had a secret meeting with both those men. He talked with them just before the terrible La Mon massacre.
Therefore, while the people of Northern Ireland realise the anguish of London people and their resentment, they feel that they—the Ulster people—are as entitled as the people of London to be rid of the presence of those men, who are just as guilty of murder as the people who are committing the dastardly deeds in Northern Ireland.
Let it be said to the House that not only do those people walk the streets of Belfast but they are received in the Parliament buildings and a Minister meets them there. How can the people of Northern Ireland be convinced that there is an even-handed way of dealing with terrorism when that goes on? Those are the facts of the situation that grieve the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I shall not give way. I promised to keep my speech to a certain time. Many hon. Members want to speak. The debate finishes at 11.30.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) told us that we were against discussion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those men set themselves up for election to an assembly in Northern Ireland. Did they say that they were prepared to attend that assembly and discuss their ideology with other elected representatives? They said: "No, we will not enter into any discussions."

Mr. Gerard Fitt: So did the SDLP.

Rev. Ian Paisley: That is right. The SDLP did the same and was condemned by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). He knows the politics of Gerry Adams. No one has been stronger in his condemnation of such politics than the hon. Gentleman, as the House knows.
When those men say that they want discussions, it is only an excuse. They do not want discussions. They want to destroy, kill and take from the people of Northern Ireland their rights.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East told us that partition was the problem in Northern Ireland and that the people of Ireland resent the fact that the island is divided. Before hon. Members discuss Northern Ireland they should read some Irish history and find out what exactly did happen in Ireland. Ireland was partitioned and the elected representatives of Ireland in the Dail approved that partition. This House approved that partition and Stormont approved it. It was done by an international agreement, which was lodged at the League of Nations. So it did not happen in a corner. It was done by the elected representatives of the people of both parts of Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East says that we should get out of Ulster. Who does he mean should get out? Does he not realise that, if every member of the British Army were taken out of Northern Ireland tomorrow, Northern Ireland would not become a united Ireland by the will of its people?
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that 50 million guarantors hold the guarantee. Let me tell him that it is a million guarantors who hold it. It is the majority of the people of Northern Ireland who will decide their future. The so-called remedies put forward in the House are ridiculous. To say that if there were an all-Ireland court and an all-Ireland police force and if everyone were to withdraw that would bring peace is a recipe not for peace but for absolute calamity. Every right-thinking person in Northern Ireland knows that—Roman Catholics and Protestants alike.
The catchphrase "We get out of Ireland" is exactly what Sinn Fein is saying. However, when it says that the British should go it means that every Unionist should go. That is exactly what de Valera said. He said that every person who believed in the union should either come into a united Ireland or leave. I do not believe in a united Ireland, as the House well knows. A million Protestants do not believe in a united Ireland. Many Roman Catholics do not believe in a united Ireland, as they showed by their votes in a recent election. It must be said in the House tonight that that is the guarantee. I think nothing of successive


Governments telling me that they have given us a guarantee. The guarantee is the will and wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
This is not a matter of employment. It is not a matter of a run-down economy. If that is settled, it will not give the answer. There is a basic conviction in the hearts of people that they want to remain in the country in which they were born and retain the citizenship to which they are entitled.
We have in the House tonight a dark shadow of another massacre. I warn the House that it is only the beginning of many more if measures are not taken to deal with the matter.
Let us be realistic. Praise was given to the UDR tonight, and rightly so. Where were the local UDR men on the night of this atrocity? Were they doing security duty in the village that they knew, when they would have recognised the strange car and the strangers who came in to do that dastardly deed? No. Under Government policy they were shifted many miles away to the village of Kilrea. It is not Government policy to use the UDR in places where they know they can be effective. In a debate last night the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) dealt with that point.
We are not asking the Government to go outside the law. We are asking the Government to allow those who are in the police force and the Army to do the job that they are entitled to do and give protection to the people of Northern Ireland.
The saddest thing about this awful calamity was the statement made by the Secretary of State that nothing more could be done and that we shall just have to carry on with the same policies. If that is so, matters will get worse and worse. I do not know how the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East was briefed in the Cabinet, but it certainly was not because of acts by B Specials or members of the RUC that the troops came to Northern Ireland: it was because law and order in the city of Londonderry broke down because of attacks made upon those who were responsible for law and order. That is why the troops were brought in.
The people of Northern Ireland have been patient. If England had had half the battering that we have had, there would be trouble on every hand. I once told the Prime Minister that if as many people had been killed in her constituency as have been killed in mine, or as have been killed in Armagh and South Tyrone, there would be uproar in the House.
What an uproar there is because two men are going to see the GLC. I am talking not about politicians, or so-called politicians who invite gunmen to discuss the future of Northern Ireland, but about the lives of our people. The people have a right to live. This House is dedicated to the rights of the individual, but there is one very precious right—the right to live. If the House uses its powers in the way that the Ulster people feel that they should be used—I am not asking anybody to step outside the law—it may bring some ray of hope to a darkened Province tonight. Some people will hope and pray that it is not from their homes that another coffin is carried, and that they will not have to share and mingle their tears with the thousands of those who have mingled their tears in the dark tragedy of the past 10 years.

Mr. William Ross: I am sorry that I was late for the debate. However, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has informed the House of the reason. I was carrying out one of the saddest duties that a Northern Ireland Member regularly carries out.
It does not give one any pleasure to listen to some of the things that have been said. It may give the Secretary of State even less pleasure to read his opening sentence on 30 June, when during a similar debate, he said:
I believe that progress on the political front has an important contribution to make in diminishing the tensions in Northern Ireland on which the terrorists feed."—[Official Report, 30 June 1982; Vol. 7. c. 941.]
One could make a good long speech on that first sentence alone, because of the inaccuracies contained within it. The tensions in Northern Ireland are largely caused by the terrorists, although they also feed on them. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about looking forward to progress on the political front, and I assumed that he was thinking about the election. But he has had that election. Tension has not been reduced. The number of murders has not fallen.
The Secretary of State gave us some figures, but only those for Northern Ireland. He forgot about the poor lads in the bandstand and about the guardsman going on duty. They were not included in the toll of IRA murders during the past few months. They should have been, because those people murder throughout the nation, and intend to do so for as long as possible.
All Government spokesmen harp on having to act within the law. Who has ever asked them to act outside the law? However, we have asked them to change the law. Year after year the Government behave as if they are dealing with a normal policing situation. They are not. We all know that that is so. In abnormal times of murder and violence, measures that might otherwise be considered abnormal can be justified and put into operation. I refer to measures far beyond those that we are discussing tonight.
Those who object to that statement do so on the ground that to take draconian measures will give Britain a bad image abroad. Is it not a far worse image of democracy that Britain cannot defend its people and keep them alive? Is it not a far worse image of this country, of which we are all so proud to belong and to live in, that the Government cannot defeat a fistful of murderers? That is the real issue and it is the measure of the failure of both Front Benches during the past 14 years.
The remarks of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) were covered adequately by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, but I shall comment briefly on some of them. He said that in 1969 the troops were sent in to protect the Roman Catholic population. Of course, they were sent there on a false premise and on false evidence. I shall tell a story to the House that I may have told before, but, like a good sermon, it is worth repeating. It was said that for many years before 1969 the Royal Ulster Constabulary did not patrol the Creggan estate or the Bogside. That is a lie. Members of the RUC patrolled there nightly on foot. The records that prove that fact can be inspected by those who believe the lie that the RUC did not patrol. That is only a pinprick on the tissue of lies that emanated from our political enemies for many years, but it shows what went on and how easily many people here were misled.


Those who think back to the early days of the present outbreak of troubles would do well to consider the solid evidence about the allegations on which the Government acted. They will be convinced, as any reasonable person would be convinced, that the Government acted foolishly and wrongly on falsehoods. To this day we are reaping the grim harvest of wrong decisions taken then.
The Secretary of State told the House during the previous Northern Ireland Question Time that the policy would continue. That was repeated, in slightly different words, to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The nub of that policy is that, to obtain agreement in Ireland, to keep the peace in Ulster and to defeat the terrorists, we must keep Dublin happy. The strength of the link between Northern Ireland and the rest of the kingdom will be diminished, not increased, because the price of Dublin co-operation must be a weakening of the link. It must mean the edging and sliding of Northern Ireland slowly but surely in the direction of Dublin rule. The House must know that what I say is true. The majority of the population in Northern Ireland resent that undermining of their position and demand that they be dragged steadily closer to their fellow citizens, not thrust out.
There are three aspects to keeping Dublin happy. First, there must be an open frontier, which is an open invitation to the murderers to flee south and then to return. Some interesting conclusions could be drawn if one were to examine the number of people from the two communities, respectively, who are serving prison sentences for murder in relation to the total number of crimes of murder that have been committed. Secondly, there is the demand for power-sharing in Ulster. Thirdly, there is the holding out of the long-term hope and vision of a united Ireland.
The statement that
Where there is no vision, the people perish
is fundamental to any nation, but it is also fundamental to the terrorist organisations which are trying to destroy the nation. It works both ways. The terrorists have a vision and the majority population in Ulster have an opposing vision. The hope of victory, the hope of achieving their ends, keep them going. When that hope is buttressed by the demand that we give a place, as of right to the politicians—someone recently called them the democratic Republicans—or a place by a more insidious method of exerting pressure through the rules for the Northern Ireland Assembly that have been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and passed by the House, the strength of will of the Republicans of all stripes, whether they have an Armalite rifle in one hand and a ballot box in the other, or whether they work only through the ballot box, is greatly increased at the expense of those who desire to maintain the Union. Because the morale of the terrorist is strengthened, and because he believes he is winning, he redoubles his efforts and carries on thrusting into more and more vile and dreadful crimes, and more blood is spilled in our streets.
The IRA demonstrated in my constituency this week the third leg of that vision—the long-term hope. If members of the IRA did not have that long-term hope, if they did not believe that they could win, if they did not believe that one day, through winning, an amnesty would be given, they would not take the risk of planting a bomb, or the risk that is inherent in moving so close to a military establishment—but they did and they do so time and again.
Far too many people either do not know or have already forgotten that that bomb was only one of several that were prepared for use. It may have been a back-up bomb, because the main weight of the explosive that was assembled was found by the civic guards in the Irish Republic and exploded at the weekend. This terrorist organisation is like an octopus. It has a central direction regardless of the name that one may put on the terrorist who pulls the trigger. It appears to be controlled from a central point. If one leg of the octopus is crippled or cut off, another one immediately reaches out to carry out a corresponding deed, to keep the machine of terror in motion.
Very few hon. Members, other than those who live in Northern Ireland, have been to a scene such as that at Ballykelly the other evening. Unless one has been there, unless one has looked at those people strewn about in bits and pieces, and unless one has said to oneself "These are the folk who voted for me, these are the people whom I represent, these are my people in the special sense that one's constituents are", one cannot understand the depth of bitterness, anger, frustration and sheer helplessness that a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament feels. We have all been through it time and time again. Time and time again we have put our arguments to Ministers, in Government after Government, and time and time again the Government of the day have refused to accept the central point, which is that it is hope that keeps the terrorists going.
Do not think that the Ballykelly tragedy could not have been worse. It could have been far worse and there will probably be more death even yet. Above all, do not think that it is the last. Do not think that the next one will not be worse. After all, the Ballykelly bomb was probably only the back-up bomb.
I have the greatest regard for the professionalism, the skill and the courage of all the security forces. Let us give them a chance to win. Let us remove the hope and the vision that the terrorist has of victory in the long-tern. Let us remove the power-sharing provisions. Above all, let us close the frontiers. That is one of the central keys in the battle against terrorism. It provides the safe haven, the hiding place, the planning room and the place where the decisions are taken and from where, very often, the attacks are launched. It can be done and if victory is to be achieved it must be done. If it is ever to be done, why should it not be done now? Let us get this thing over and done with once and for all.
The Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that he would like to comfort the grieving. The greatest comfort that all the grieving of Ulster can have lies in measures to ensure that the murderers are caught. The greatest comfort that the people of Ulster can have is the vision of a sure and safe haven, where they wish to belong, within the United Kingdom. If the right hon. Gentleman is worried about harsh measures, the people of Ulster are not worried about them in the slightest. We are worried far more about harsh murder and the evil and violence that we face every day.
Let us consider the history of the death penalty in Ireland as a whole. The willingness to execute would show a determination, which until now has been lacking. Secondly, the Irish Republic in its early days faced similar violence and stopped it by a liberal use of the death penalty. Thirdly, many men went on hunger strike and were glad to find any excuse to come off it. So they fear


for their lives and they value them. At the end of the day, by an iron will, the hunger strikers were beaten. They had to forsake that weapon. They would not have forsaken it if they had thought it would be successful. It was unsuccessful, because they were allowed to commit suicide. That hunger strike provided the clearest evidence that the death penalty will work.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that the debate must end at 11.30 pm. The Minister hopes to catch my eye at about 11.20 pm.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: In Northern Ireland today there are 130,000 unemployed. There are massive social and economic problems. In the Republic of Ireland today there are nearly 200,000 unemployed and even greater economic and social problems. Last Monday night 16 young people in Ballykelly—British, Irish, Catholic and Protestant—were blown to smithereens, allegedly in an attempt to bring about the unity of Ireland. Many more have been maimed for the rest of their lives. Let us think for a few seconds of the terrible distress and despair that has been brought to those bereaved relatives. We must ask ourselves "What motivates people to carry out such an horrific act?" I listened tonight to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and I was sadly disappointed. However well intentioned he may be, and I do not dispute his motives, his speech will give succour to the people who plant bombs and kill. It is that kind of logic which generates paramilitary organisations.
As I have said before, I am in total dispute with all the Unionist Members in the House. I believe passionately in a united Ireland. I believe that there will never be peace in Ireland until the border is removed. It was the creation of the border that has led to so many of the deaths and tragedies in Northern Ireland. I believe passionately in the unity of Ireland, and I do so only because I know there will be continuing murders until Ireland is united. I believe passionately that Ireland cannot be united by the actions that we saw in Ballykelly on Monday night. There is nothing in Ireland today to justify any murder.
That is why I was so disappointed yesterday evening when I heard that the Home Secretary had placed an exclusion order on the two Sinn Fein representatives who were coming here to explain the policy of Sinn Fein. They were coming here to defend the policy of the IRA. I do not believe that we can defend murder in any circumstances. I do not believe that we can explain away the terrible atrocities that have been committed by a series of paramilitary organisations over the past 10 or 12 years. I do not believe in the great sincerity of Ken Livingstone in inviting the two Sinn Fein candidates to London.
The problem in Ireland has existed for many centuries, but particularly over the last 13 years. Why did not Ken Livingstone go to Belfast last year and the years before that to acquaint himself of the terrible problems with which we have had to live? Why did he say today that he will find time in January to go to Belfast to have discussions with Sinn Fein?
I came to London this afternoon. It is one-and-a-half hours from here. Ken Livingstone should avail himself of the opportunity to fly from Heathrow to Aldergrove and

take a bus from there to Ballykelly. Let him stop off and visit Altnagelvin hospital and the homes of the bereaved relatives tonight. If he showed humanity and compassion along those lines, I might be inclined to believe him.
I have never yet met Mr. Ken Livingstone, but I am not intimidated or frightened by him. I would say it to his face. I think Ken Livingstone is more interested in the deselection of the Brent, East constituency and getting that seat for himself. That must happen before Christmas. That is why Ken Livingstone is so mixed up in Irish affairs. He wants to unseat a sitting MP and get himself into this House.
I was in Belfast yesterday, where I heard Ken Livingstone say, "The only reason I invited the Sinn Fein candidates to London was that I do not want bombs going off in London". What response did he expect? Everyone living in London is bound to support such a proposal, because no one in the run-up to Christmas wants to walk around in fear of being killed. Mr. Livingstone did not have to look far for support when he expressed that sentiment.
Northern Ireland is coming to the end of a tragic week. One must see these events at first hand to realise how futile these murders are. I have experienced an incident such as the one that occurred at Ballykelly, when McGurk's bar in my constituency was blown up and 16 people blown to smithereens. I was even closer to the scene, because I helped to pull the dead out of the rubble.
I was in Belfast last weekend when the news of Ken Livingstone's invitation was first announced. On Monday morning, the day before the murders at Ballykelly, Sinn Fein was shaking in its shoes. It did not want to come, because it knew that because of the controversy it might get an uneasy reception. I knew that Sinn Fein was desperately seeking any excuse to prevent it from coming to London.
I telephoned the Home Secretary's office—I place this on the record so that it can be verified—and spoke to his private secretary. I said, "Sinn Fein is shaking in its shoes. It will not go to London. It is looking for any excuse".
Those who let off bombs, smuggle in bags of gelignite and jump on to buses, blow the brains out of bus drivers or shoot men in front of their 10 year-old sons have a special type of courage. The Sinn Fein representatives invited here knew that they would get a hostile reception.
I appealed to the Home Secretary not to place any exclusion order on the Sinn Fein candidates and not to have them arrested when they arrived at Heathrow. In fact, the Sinn Fein candidates are so courageous that they do not even go to Aldergrove airport to fly to London. They go to Dublin. But there is no Dublin on this side of the water. That illustrates their courage.
It was a mistake for the Home Secretary to have placed that ban on Sinn Fein. It has gained a considerable political victory out of it. In Belfast today it was claiming that it had been denied the right to free democratic expression to come to London and put its views, but many other members of Sinn Fein, who have not been involved in terrorism, would not be excluded.
Sinn Fein took upon itself the role of a martyr. The only martyrs in Northern Ireland today are those who were killed and maimed in the Ballykelly explosion and the bereaved relatives whom they left behind. The Home Secretary was utterly wrong to have stopped those men from coming. They cannot, and never will be able to


explain away such acts as happened in Ballykelly. Nor will their apologists in the House —there are a few around—or those in Ireland be able to explain them away.
Some time ago, a book called "On Another Man's Wound" was written in the South. There are an awful lot of people in the House who would be prepared to live on another man's wound.
Having said all that, I must say that I have opposed this type of legislation because I believe that many innocent people are caught in its tentacles. I am not opposing it for the first or the second time, nor am I making a speech for the first time. I am being as consistent as I ever was in my opposition to this legislation; and I shall vote against it tonight.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I am sure that all hon. Members will have been moved by the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), the depth of feeling in the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the great depth of feeling that was expressed by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). All hon. Members who come from this side of the water must recognise that we cannot possibly understand fully the depth of feeling that they have expressed. We do them a grave injustice unless we recognise that.
I am also afraid that in the five minutes that are left to me, I cannot possibly do anything like justice to the arguments that were adduced by hon. Members from across the water. I hope that they will exonerate me if I devote a few seconds of my limited time to suggest to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) that it ill befits him to use the sweet talk of democracy, human rights and democratic procedures to advance the utterly undemocratic suggestion that simply because there is a group of people who inconveniently are part of the United Kingdom they should be expelled from the United Kingdom because of that inconvenience. The sweet lingua franca of democracy should not be used to those ends.
I have rightly been pressed hard by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). His case for pressing us on the review of the Act was extremely soundly based. Whatever has happened since we last extended the emergency provisions, the Government believe that the courts have continued to discharge their duties in scheduled cases without fear or favour. I utterly reject any suggestion to the contrary. I also reject any such suggestion with regard to the security forces. We have the utmost confidence in them and in the sensitivity with which they apply the terms of the emergency provisions legislation.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield rightly said that the emergency powers were necessary for the present, but he went on to say, equally rightly, that we must not allow them to become part of the fabric of Northern Ireland society because if they became a permanent part of the warp and the weft of the Northern Ireland way of life in the long term that would be anti-democratic in the true sense of the term.
I fully appreciate the strength of the right hon. Gentleman's feelings in condemning the delay in bringing forward the review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Unfortunately, however, that review is closely linked with the review of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act by Lord Jellicoe,

which has taken a little longer than we expected. As the two reviews are closely linked, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to take long and deep soundings to find the right person to conduct the EPA review.
To do their job properly, the police and security forces in Northern Ireland need three things. First, they need the support of the whole community, on both sides of the sectarian divide and to that end the Government are devoted. Secondly, they need the resources of men and arms to do the job. Those they have in plenty, as my right hon. Friend announced last week, with an increase in the RUC. Thirdly, until the review takes place—I do not intend to prejudge the results of the review—they need the emergency provisions provided by the Act. Therefore, I commend this order to keep the Act in play for a further six months, pending the outcome of the review which we hope will take place in the near future.
The Act is vital to the conduct of safe and proper policing and to the security of the people of the Province, and for the moment we cannot do without it.

Question put:—

The House Divided: Ayes 94, Noes 15.

Division No. 28]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Mellor, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Arnold, Tom
Molyneaux, James


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Murphy, Christopher


Berry, Hon Anthony
Needham, Richard


Bevan, David Gilroy
Onslow, Cranley


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Blackburn, John
Paisley, Rev Ian


Blaker, Peter
Parris, Matthew


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Patten, John (Oxford)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Prior, Rt Hon James


Brooke, Hon Peter
Proctor, K. Harvey


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Browne, John (Winchester)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Butcher, John
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Roper, John


Chapman, Sydney
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Rossi, Hugh


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Cope, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Costain, Sir Albert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dorrell, Stephen
Silvester, Fred


Dunlop, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Elliott, Sir William
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Speller, Tony


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Forman, Nigel
Stainton, Keith


Fox, Marcus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stanley, John


Gow, Ian
Stevens, Martin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gummer, John Selwyn
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Hampson, Dr Keith
Thompson, Donald


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Lamont, Norman
Waddington, David


Lang, Ian
Waldegrave, Hon William


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Waller, Gary


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ward, John


McCusker, H.
Wells, Bowen


MacGregor, John
Wheeler, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)



Marlow, Antony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mather, Carol
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Mr. David Hunt.






NOES


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Richardson, Jo


Cryer, Bob
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Fitt, Gerard
Skinner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Tilley, John


Harman, Harriet (Peckham)



Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Tellers for the Noes:


Lamond, James
Mr. A. W. Stallard and


Maynard, Miss Joan
Mr. Alfred Dubs.


Race, Reg

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.

INCOME TAX

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, etc.)
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport Profits) (Cameroon) Order 1982 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th, November.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Zimbabwe) Order 1982 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th November.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Round Oak Steelworks

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. John G. Blackburn: I rise for the fourth time in two weeks to bring to the attention of the House the critical position in my constituency relating to the proposed closure of the Round Oak steelworks. With all the power and dedication at my command, I represent my people in order, yet again, to present a case for the retention of the steelworks.
These steelworks have been a vital and profitable part of the private sector of the steel industry for the last 124 years. Responsible representations have been made to the chairman of the British Steel Corporation, the Secretary of State, and the Minister of State by trade unions—it would be improper for me to mention that they are represented tonight— the Dudley metropolitan council, led by the mayor, the West Midlands county council and myself.
Documented evidence of a high order has been supplied in support of the case which, yet again, I outline to the House. The plant is one of the most modern in Europe. The British Steel Corporation would be proud to achieve 26 per cent. of its production by continuous casting in order to keep plants based on the ingot route open. If Mr. MacGregor had suggested such a closure to the Governments of either Germany or Japan he would have been laughed all the way back across the Pacific.
Industrial relations are a model for the industry. The trade unions have co-operated fully in the reduction of the work force from about 3,000 to 1,286 in three years. Even against that background, they are prepared to reduce the work force by a further figure to 900, with completely flexible working systems. These systems earned the highest praise from the chairman of the British Steel Corporation when he recently visited the works.
The plant is probably the only steel producing plant that is capable of being profitable on 55 per cent. capacity. In essence, it is all that is good about a steelworks. It is all that the Government have sought. I state, with humility, that I am proud to be associated with the works, the largest employer in my constituency. I object in the strongest possible terms to the closure notice, both the manner in which it was handled without consultation and the time element of five weeks. With other closures, such as Corby, there has been up to a year's notice. The matter merits the most thorough investigation. It is nothing short of a disgrace.
There are three basic reasons for the retention of the steelworks. The facts that I present cannot be challenged. In financial terms, the works are viable. I am able to report that a completely independent assessment of the financial structure has been completed this very day with the aid of the best computer. Recent trials have pointed to such a high quality of product that an annual order for 50,000 tonnes is waiting to be secured as second supplier to BSC Cumbria at Workington. With all the power at my command, I seek the assurance from BSC that the order will be placed with Round Oak steelworks.
I have documentary evidence that local steel consumers are waiting to place orders of up to 1,000 tonnes a week. These are not being accepted. I have irrefutable evidence that failure to accept the orders will result in just what we


do not want—imports. The exchange rate has fallen by 4 per cent., making the exports of the company even more competitive. It has to be borne in mind that the company holds the Queen's Award for export achievement. I am delighted that the firm is situated in my constituency.
I applaud without question the reduction of 12½ per cent. secured by the Secretary of State in steel imports from third countries. There is extra capacity that can be produced by United Kingdom manufacturers. Round Oak is at the heart of the engineering industry. It produces high quality engineering steel. It is on the record that, for the last three years, hon. Members on both sides have given active and financial support to British Leyland for the production of the LC10 car. I pay a warm and generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who will be replying to the debate, for the prominent role that he played as a Back Bencher in seeing that work on the LC10 went ahead. It is now a reality. The components for the car should be manufactured in the West Midlands, in the heart of the Black Country. And here is the steelworks, specialising in the steel required to supply this venture.
The social impact of the closure of the black country—not simply the constituency that I have the honour to serve—would be devastating. Unemployment is growing more rapidly here than in Scotland, the North-East or Merseyside. That aspect has been well documented and presented to the Secretary of State by the Dudley local authority. I pay warm tributes to the mayor of the borough, who has been active in all these matters, and to the chief executive, Mr. John Mulvehill, to whom I owe a personal debt. They receive from me the highest possible commendation.
The third aspect to which I wish to draw attention is something which, in the final analysis, must be held very dear—certainly to me. It is the political philosophy of the proposed closure of the steelworks. I demand from the Government a renewal of the covenant which was made in 1981, and to which I was an enthusiastic subscriber, that Round Oak steelworks, having had its natural habitat for 124 years in the private sector, should be returned to the private sector. It was to be the king-pin of phoenix 2. I went into the Lobby, secure in the fact that there would be a phoenix 2, that there would be a private sector, and that it would compete equally and fairly with the giant British Steel Corporation. The private sector is part of my fundamental philosophy and that of my party. How can there be a private sector when the House was told last week that every tonne of steel that is produced by BSC carries a subsidy of £88?
I find it morally and politically offensive that a Government should condone the proposition that the British Steel Corporation should be allowed to use public money in its attempt to close the private steelworks at Manchester, using £16 million to put 900 men out of work. That is the confusion of the slaughterhouse, with the logic of the madhouse, supported by the assets of the poorhouse. The British Steel Corporation is financially bankrupt. It is the will of the House that we go through the Lobbies to write off millions of pounds again.
It is manifestly clear that a similar situation now applies at Round Oak steelworks, and I shall defend those steelworks tonight. The share capital of that company was purchased with public money. Although the time scale is

a little longer, the situation is the same—the purchase of Round Oak with the intention of closing it and removing a competitor.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: It is too efficient.

Mr. Blackburn: My hon. Friend knows the area well, and knows the Black Country. He is correct when he says that Round Oak is too efficient. It is the most efficient modern steel plant in the country. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.
By the grace of God I shall display all the courage and dedication that is required to oppose the closure. I shall do it in a most reasonable and responsible way, which I pray will be the hallmark of my service in the House.
It is a matter of considerable concern that this company could be closed within five weeks of receiving the notice. I am able to tell the House that, because of the wealth of good will that has been extended to Round Oak steelworks, the highest and most knowledgeable authority in the country in connection with the administration of the steel industry is being commissioned to produce an independent report on Round Oak. I have already said that an independent financial report is being produced. Tomorrow at 2 o'clock I shall have it in my hands. It will be no surprise to the House to learn that the first person to whom it will go will be the Secretary of State for Industry, who is represented by his junior Minister tonight.
On behalf of the fine workers of Round Oak steelworks and the people of Dudley, and to protect the political integrity of the Government, I look to Ministers on the Treasury Bench. I ask that they take note of the fact that an independent assessment of the financial structure has been completed. I invite the Minister to take note of the fact that the highest authority in the land is being commissioned to do an independent inquiry into the viability of the steelworks. I know that the steelworks are viable. I could never stand by and see my workers taken out of employment when I know, and in the soberness of the House we all know, that they are fine men producing a fine product in demand. They do it very well and very competitively. I pay tribute to them.
It is in that spirit that I commend to the House the proposal that in no circumstances must Round. Oak steelworks close. It is financially viable. It has an order book. It has a superb work force and a reputation which has been built up solidly for 124 years. I give due notice—I do not say this in a sense of bravado, but out of a sense of affection for my people—that I cannot and will not stand by and watch this dark day dawn.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) on the most diligent and vigorous way in which he has presented his case both tonight and on previous occasions. He has pursued his constituents' interests most energetically and sincerely in seeking out my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on several occasions. Last week he led a deputation from the Round Oak works, the Dudley district council and the West Midlands county council to see my right hon. Friend. I know that he has the wholehearted support for his efforts from all those involved with the Round Oak works, with which he himself has been so closely involved over several years.


As the Member for Coventry, South-West, I share my hon. Friend's concern about what is happening in the west midlands. Traditionally it is an area of great prosperity with low levels of unemployment by comparison with other parts of the country. Because of this, the present hardships are even more difficult to understand and to come to terms with. The announcement of the ending of steelmaking is a sad blow to the West Midlands. I join my hon. Friend in his concern for the work-force, and their families, faced with this closure.
The steel industry currently faces appalling problems. We heard of many of them in the course of the steel debate in the House only last week and many suggestions were put forward to improve matters. I remind the House of some of the key issues which are at the roots of the problem. Essentially there remains too much capacity to meet fewer and fewer orders.
The British Steel Corporation has more than twice the capacity of its current production of 10 million tonnes of liquid steel. On even the most optimistic of medium-term forecasts, steel demand is not expected to approach anything like those levels. This is a world-wide problem, but one that is particularly acute in Europe and in the United Kingdom. The solution to our problems is closely bound up with the measures being taken in Europe. We have fully supported the regime to cut capacity and phase out subsidies by 1985. This means further cuts in capacity and some of them will, I am afraid, affect modem steel plants.
The rules on pricing, production and imports from third countries are all being tightened and we welcome that. Those latter measures are essentially short-term palliatives designed to give industry a breathing space in which to adapt to the necessary structural changes.
For a time those measures brought some relief, but from the spring of this year the position has again deteriorated seriously. BSC's recently announced half-year losses of £154 million bear witness to the extent of this deterioration. Losses on this scale cannot continue and the corporation has therefore acted urgently to reduce them. It has been explained on previous occasions to the House that the Government, with the corporation, is undertaking a review of BSC's five major integrated works. However, other measures to cut costs, involving further redundancies and closures of smaller plants, are a matter for BSC's judgment and do not require authorisation by the Government. The decision to close Round Oak has fallen into this latter category.
Round Oak, as my hon. Friend said, has been a private sector firm for over 100 years. Since nationalisation in 1967, it has been jointly owned by Tube Investments Ltd. and BSC. Its principal function was to supply tube rounds to TI. By late 1980, along with most of the companies making engineering steel, it was sustaining heavy losses. Here again the problem was one of serious over-capacity, and so discussions about rationalisation within the sector began. These discussions were codenamed Phoenix II. The objective was a viable joint venture, private sector company. At the outset there were five or six possible participants operating at several locations in the United Kingdom and with a combined capacity of around 4·5 million tonnes. There was general agreement at the time that only some 2·3 million to 2·8 million tonnes was required.
By early 1981, Round Oak was in serious difficulties and the Government therefore authorised BSC to buy out TI's shareholding, in order to prevent the company from going into receivership. The clear intention was that the Round Oak plant would form part of the Phoenix II company. As we know, the discussions between the principal parties, BSC and GKN, have not produced any firm proposals. Sadly, no Phoenix II company has materialised.
Meanwhile, demand for steel products has dropped below even last year's levels—in engineering steels, demand this year is 20 per cent. below BSC's expectations. Further reductions in capacity are inevitable. BSC has therefore acted to close Round Oak, involving 1,286 job losses and at the same time has announced 1,700 further job losses at it plants in Sheffield and Rotherham, together with the closure of an electric arc furnace. Those are serious measures, but BSC's situation is serious and the corporation needs urgently to cut its costs to restore its financial and commercial position.
These measures will still leave BSC with almost 2 million tonnes of engineering steels capacity. Nor must we forget the rest of the private sector, which has currently over 600,000 tonnes in addition. United Kingdom demand for engineering steels totals 1·7 million tonnes and this is not forecast to show any significant improvement in the next two years. An increase in demand of 50 per cent. can thus be met without the Round Oak capacity of 360,000 tonnes and without increasing imports.
I turn more closely to the capability of the Round Oak works and the decision by BSC to close it. It has been made clear that that decision is a BSC management decision, and not one in which the Government would seek to influence or question the corporation's commercial judgment. I understand, however, that although it is agreed that the works is modern and flexible with concast facilities, there are now cheaper means in BSC and the private sector in the United Kingdom for producing the tube rounds which gave the works its traditional order book. That is a development that has also taken place abroad. In addition, orders for tube rounds have now dropped to a very low level.
The plan put forward by the work force involves a breathing space of 12 months in which to allow Round Oak to re-establish its market base. But as I have just explained, BSC believes that tube rounds can be produced more cheaply elsewhere and these alternative facilities are not expected to be fully loaded next year. In engineering steels, Round Oak would be competing against other BSC works and the private sector where both BSC and GKN have recently announced redundancies reflecting reduced demand and over-capacity for those products.
The more favourable exchange rate has only restored the position in Europe, where the overall market is more competitive than last year. Demand in the United States of America is low and the quota arrangements inhibit any significant improvement. Elsewhere in the world, business is to be had only at a very low price, requiring the lowest cost process routes to be used.
Unfortunately, reducing the work force to 900 does not remove the underlying problem of excess steel making capacity, nor can it compensate for the very low level of the Round Oak order book. The works is not viable at the 4,000 tonnes per week level suggested. I understand that the order of 1,000 tonnes referred to is a single order for 1,000 tonnes of steel made very recently after the closure


announcement, and is not a regular order for 1,000 tonnes per week. However, I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend had to say and I am sure that that will enter into the Secretary of State's consideration of the paper that he recently put forward at the Department of Industry.
This closure has been presented as a departure from our political philosophy of promoting the cause of the private sector of industry. It is true that in the Phoenix II case things have not gone well and that the lengthy discussions between BSC and GKN have not produced a new joint venture company, but this was always a particularly difficult sector in which to seek success. With Phoenix I and Phoenix III we have been more successful. Last year, Allied Steel and Wire was set up, merging certain of the rod and bar interests of BSC and GKN. Rationalisation has also taken place in the heavy forgings area with the recent birth of Sheffield Forgemasters, a joint venture between BSC and Johnson and Firth Brown.
The paramount problem in the private sector is also one of over-capacity and the only way forward is for the industry to rationalise its resources. In order to assist this process, the Government originally offered £22 million under the private sector steel scheme and that has recently been increased to £34 million. One part of the scheme offers assistance to self-help levy schemes. Hon. Members will no doubt have seen references in last Sunday's press to major proposals for such schemes for the steel castings industry, and a similiar scheme was announced last week for wire drawers. They have the double attraction of ensuring a sector-wide approach to rationalisation, largely funded by the industry, and of ensuring that it is the industry as a whole—and not Government—that decides which companies are to close and which are to remain in business.
My hon. Friend referred to the proposal for a scheme for the wire rod and rebar sector. The compensation that was to have been given to Manchester Steel was, I stress,

to be funded not only by BSC but by other private sector producers. Indeed, it was a prime condition of the Government's support that that was so. As my hon. Friend knows, that particular proposal has now been dropped.
My hon. Friend and I share a common interest in the well-being of the West Midlands. He and I have fought this corner together in the past. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend and I am aware that he has put in a very strong and tightly reasoned report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is considering it. I assure my hon. Friend that his report, and the representations that he has often made, will be treated very seriously. I know that he has a promise from the Secretary of State that we shall respond to those representations as soon as we can.
My hon. Friend has been pugnacious in defence of his constituents' interests and in the interests of the Round Oak steelworks. I am sure that he can detect almost envy on my part because I am standing here and he is standing there on this occasion. That envy may not be reciprocated, given my hon. Friend's obvious affection for and faith in his constituents. He has shown that faith and I hope that, when we come to respond, we shall show that we have taken his position seriously.
My hon. Friend talked, rightly, about integrity. He has shown integrity in the way that he pursues his aims to preserve the Round Oak steelworks. We shall try to respond with equal integrity, because my hon. Friend's case justifies that.
I know well the people of the Black Country—those who live in Netherton, near Conuygre road and in Tipton. They are tough, warm and hardworking people and for their sake we should treat seriously my hon Friend's requests.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.